CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 59Gender, Feminism, and MediaEating Disorders and BehaviorsMedia, Gender, and Advertising

Objectifying the body positive movement: The effects of sexualizing and digitally modifying body-positive images on Instagram

Open access
Vendemia, Megan A., DeAndrea, David C., Brathwaite, Kyla N.·2021·Body Image
DOI 10.1016/j.bodyim.2021.03.017
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The body positive movement on social media seeks to challenge narrow conceptualizations of beauty that media outlets traditionally perpetuate and reinforce. Through a 2 × 2 between-subjects online experiment, we examined how the nature and authenticity of body-positive imagery on social media affects female viewers and their evaluations of body-positive content (N = 425, M age = 35.47, SD age = 13.52). Specifically, participants viewed and reacted to a series of 10 body-positive images of women on social media varying in their degree of sexualization (sexualized vs. non-sexualized) and evidence of digital photo modifications (modification icons vs. no modification icons). A control group that featured landscape images was also included. Results indicate body-positive images that are considered sexualized and are believed to be digitally modified can undercut the movement's intended aims: Participants who viewed body-positive images that were sexualized (vs. non-sexualized) and included photo modification icons (vs. no modification icons) reported greater endorsement of traditional beauty ideals (e.g., thinness) and thought the images were shared for self-serving reasons (e.g., to gain likes/shares/endorsements); these relationships were mediated by the extent to which viewers believed these images were sexualized and digitally modified. Further, results indicate that sexualized body-positive images can instigate sexual objectification of others and oneself. Those who viewed control images (vs. experimental body-positive images) produced significantly fewer sexually objectifying words about others and themselves. Implications for both viewers and producers (e.g., individuals, corporations) of body-positive imagery on social media are discussed in light of objectification theory.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bodyim.2021.03.017

Cites

91 of 91 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Vendemia, M. A., DeAndrea, D. C., & Brathwaite, K. N.
Affiliations
  • Chapman University (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Body Image
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-09
Volume
38
Pages
137-147
ISSN
1740-1445 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.bodyim.2021.03.017
OpenAlex
W3155897168
Cited by
58
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 4
FWCI
13.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Body Image (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Chapman University Digital Commons (Chapman University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Chapman University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Feminism, and Media
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Media, Gender, and Advertising
Keywords
body positive movement, sexualization, Instagram, objectification theory, sexual objectification, beauty standards, self-serving motives, social media images, female body
MeSH terms
Digital Technology, Adult, Body Image, Female, Humans, Sexual Behavior, Social Media

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review