Abstract
In this cross-sectional study, we examined if and how experiences of sexual objectification in one's family of origin are associated with sex-related outcomes among 700 young adult college women who completed an online survey. We found that sexual objectification in one's family of origin was directly and indirectly related to both body image self-consciousness during sex and sexual refusal through more self-objectification. In addition, sexual objectification in one's family of origin was indirectly related to less sexual communication via more self-objectification. Among the subsample of participants who had engaged in recent sexual activity, sexual objectification in one's family of origin was indirectly related to less orgasm via four pathways (a) more self-objectification, (b) less sexual refusal, (c) the serial link from more self-objectification to less sexual refusal, and (d) the serial link from more self-objectification to less sexual communication. Our findings suggest that sexual objectification in one's family of origin influences young adult college women's sexual experiences and sexual agency through more self-objectification and women's sexual functioning through more self-objectification and less sexual agency. That is, more experiences of sexual objectification in one's family of origin may lead a woman to internalize those messages and begin to treat herself as an object. This self-objectification, in turn, may make it more difficult for her to communicate her sexual desires and refuse sex when she does not want it, which may ultimately affect her satisfaction with and ability to orgasm during sex.
For many women, experiences of sexual objectification begin early in their lives, often in their family of origin. These experiences can include pressures from family members to appear physically attractive, evaluative messages about their bodies, and sexual comments about how they or other women look (De Simone et al., 2026; Szymanski et al., 2024). These experiences may be related to problems with sexual agency and sexual functioning because they communicate the message that a woman's worth is connected to her physical body and her ability to provide sexual pleasure to others. Drawing from objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997), we examined if and how experiences of sexual objectification in one's family of origin are associated with sex-related outcomes among young adult college women. We focused on young adult college women because family of origin messages and experiences are likely to be especially salient during this life stage, as early familial environments often predict the trajectories of later identity development in young adulthood (Prioste et al., 2020; Szymanski et al., 2024). Further, issues surrounding sexuality become especially important during this period, as developing a healthy perspective on sex and engaging in fulfilling sexual and romantic relationships is a major developmental task (Auslander & Rosenthal, 2010). Finally, gendered socialization pressures related to sexual objectification may be particularly relevant to college women in casual sexual relationships (e.g., hook-ups) that are commonplace in this setting (Hamilton & Armstrong, 2009). Thus, examining the links between sexual objectification in one's family of origin and sex-related outcomes is crucial given the unique life stage associated with this population.
Objectification Theory
Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) proposed objectification theory to help explain why women experience more depression, disordered eating, and sexual dysfunction than men. They asserted that women are subjected to chronic and multiple forms of sexual objectification throughout their lives. Sexual objectification occurs when women's bodies are valued for their physical appearance and sexual appeal and treated as sexual objects. Sexual objectification occurs at intrapersonal, interpersonal, familial, institutional, political, and cultural levels, as well as across multiple domains of life (e.g., workplace, educational settings, community; American Psychological Association, 2007; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) asserted that women's experiences of sexual objectification contribute to psychological and sexual problems that disproportionately affect women through their internalization of these experiences and the negative messages they convey. This internalization, or self-objectification, manifests in valuing one's physical appearance attributes above one's personality and competence-based attributes and in adopting a spectator's view of one's body (Lindner & Tantleff-Dunn, 2017). Research supporting the links between external and internalized sexual objectification with depression, disordered eating, and other forms of psychological distress among women is well-established (Calogero et al., 2011; Szymanski, 2020; Szymanski & Feltman, 2014, 2015; Szymanski & Mikorski, 2017; Szymanski et al., 2021). These findings lend support to objectification theory in showing that experiences of sexual objectification are important explanatory factors underlying women's mental health concerns. However, research examining links between both external and internalized sexual objectification and women's sexual outcomes is limited (for a review, see Kahalon & Klein, 2025).
Sexual Objectification in One's Family of Origin and Self-Objectification
Experiencing sexual objectification in one's family of origin involves receiving messages from one's family that women's value derives from their appearance and sexual appeal (Szymanski et al., 2024). These messages may be derived from personal experiences of objectification from family members while growing up as well as witnessing family members objectify other women and/or themselves. Sexually objectifying experiences in one's family of origin include body evaluation, prioritizing physical attractiveness, and hearing sexually objectifying comments from family members. Sexual objectification in one's family of origin may be meaningfully distinguished from other forms of both interpersonal and cultural sexual objectification based on the developmental period during which it occurs and the specific consequences of family members being the sources of objectifying messages.
Other identified modes of interpersonal sexual objectification occur in adulthood and consist largely of experiencing overt behaviors from others such as stranger harassment (e.g., catcalling, staring, honking, sexual comments, and other unwanted sexual advances; Kozee et al., 2007). Individuals may also experience sexual objectification from their romantic partners when excessive or sole emphasis is placed on physical appearance or sexual attributes while devaluing non-physical characteristics such as personal qualities, intelligence, competence, or emotional intimacy (Zurbriggen et al., 2011). Individuals may additionally experience sexual objectification not through direct interaction with others, but through exposure to broader sociocultural trends, namely sexually objectifying media such as TV, music, magazines, and online content (Ward, 2016).
Sexual objectification in one's family of origin is qualitatively different from these types of experiences, as it consists primarily of subtle familial messaging and modeling that communicates the desirability and normality of sexual objectification by family figures that are central to a child's development (Szymanski et al., 2024). Social learning theory posits that observational learning is more likely to take place when an individual is closer with the person modeling the behavior (Bandura, 2001). Thus, the level of closeness and amount of personal contact individuals have with their family members during childhood, as well as the strong likelihood of children learning from their family members through observation, makes experiences of sexual objectification in family of origin unique in comparison to other previously explored forms of interpersonal and cultural sexual objectification.
Objectification theory posits that sexual objectification experiences are a precursor to self-objectification (the adoption of an observer's perspective on the self and view of the self as a sexual object; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997); thus, sexual objectification experiences in one's family of origin should be related to self-objectification. Sexual objectification in one's family of origin may be particularly pernicious because it occurs during an important developmental period (e.g., childhood/adolescence/young adulthood); is communicated by important, influential figures (e.g., parents, siblings, grandparents); and is entwined with attachment, safety, trust, and uneven power dynamics (De Simone et al., 2026; Szymanski et al., 2024). Thus, hearing appearance- or sexual-related comments from a family member in adolescence vs. a stranger in adulthood may be particularly strongly associated with later internalization of sexually objectifying messages. Individuals who experience important attachment figures treating them or other women as if they should only be valued for their physical appearance and attractiveness are likely to latch onto messages of sexual objectification. The view of self as a sexual object may then become embedded in the individual's psychological architecture, strongly structuring how they see the world, themselves, and other people. Supporting this reasoning, previous research has linked sexual objectification in one's family of origin to more self-objectification, greater internalization of cultural standards of beauty, more body shame, greater depressive symptoms, and more disordered eating (Szymanski et al., 2024). Furthermore, these relations held true even after controlling for related but conceptually distinct forms of sexual objectification. That is, sexual objectification in one's family of origin accounted for unique variance in these outcomes, even when controlling for “everyday” interpersonal experiences of sexual objectification and an extreme form of sexual objectification, childhood sexual abuse.
Objectification and Sex-Related Outcomes
Associations between the previously explored sexual objectification variables (sexual objectification in one's family of origin and self-objectification) and sex-related outcomes are understudied. Among women, we could find no research examining the links between sexual objectification in one's family of origin and sex-related factors. Furthermore, scholars have suggested that sex-related factors, such as body image self-consciousness during sex and sexual agency, may better explain the external and internalized sexual objectification and sexual dysfunction links (Carretta & Szymanski, 2022; Kahalon et al., 2024; Wiederman, 2000) than more general factors originally proposed in objectification theory (e.g., body shame, anxiety about physical safety; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Objectification experiences, particularly self-objectification, may relate to how women view themselves as sexual beings (Calogero & Thompson, 2009) and are especially pertinent to the sexual domain because there is more focus on the body (Tiggemann, 2011). Thus, external and internalized messages about women being sex objects valued for their physical appearance are likely to have salience for women during sexual situations. In this analysis, we explored sexual objectification in one's family of origin and self-objectification and their associations with the following sex-related outcomes: body image self-consciousness during sex, sexual agency, and sexual functioning as measured through orgasm.
Body Image Self-Consciousness During Sex
Sexual objectification in one's family of origin may influence self-objectification generally but also more specifically in situations that activate those messages and make them more salient, such as in sexual situations. That is, women with greater self-objectification may experience body image self-consciousness during sex, defined as anxiety related to how their bodies will be perceived by their sexual partners (Cash et al., 2004; Wiederman, 2000). Wiederman (2000) found that this physical self-consciousness and body exposure avoidance during sex was relevant for college women, with 35% reporting that they experienced body image self-consciousness during sex at least some of the time. This heightened body image self-consciousness during sex can relate to sexual functioning problems, such as difficulty experiencing orgasm during sex, through interference with sexual pleasure (Cash et al., 2004; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Wiederman, 2000).
Previous research employing both cross-sectional (Carretta & Szymanski, 2022; Claudat & Warren, 2014; Claudat et al., 2012; Steer & Tiggemann, 2008) and longitudinal (Vandenbosch & Eggermont, 2014) methods supports the positive link between self-objectification and body image self-consciousness during sex. However, research linking external forms of sexual objectification, including sexual objectification in one's family of origin, to body image self-consciousness during sex via self-objectification is lacking.
Sexual Agency
Sexual agency refers to the ability to make free and informed choices about one's body, sexual desires, and sexual experiences (Fahs & McClelland, 2016). Avery et al. (2022) revealed two important aspects of sexual agency: sexual communication assertiveness (ability to express sexual desires to a partner) and sexual refusal assertiveness (ability to deny engagement in unwanted sexual activities). We could find no studies examining sexual objectification in one's family of origin and its relation to sexual agency. However, applying the propositions of objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) to these associations, we anticipate that when women experience sexual objectification in their family of origin, they may also display difficulties communicating their sexual desires and saying no to sex or sexual activities that they do not wish to engage in. Sexual objectification in family of origin may be related to greater difficulties with sexual assertiveness through its association with self-objectification, by increasing the likelihood that young adult women will view themselves as sexualized objects for their partner's pleasure rather than autonomous beings with the right to fulfillment of their own sexual needs. Primary focus on the external appearance of one's body is theorized to divert attention from awareness of internal experience (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Thus, women with heightened self-objectification may focus intensely on how their bodies look to others and may thus have limited awareness of and ability to communicate their sexual desires (Kahalon et al., 2024). With greater self-objectification and lower awareness of or connection to an internal sense of sexual pleasure, we suspect that women will experience heightened passivity in sexual encounters, deferring largely to the sexual preferences of their partners, which may in turn negatively affect their sexual functioning.
Orgasm
Sexual functioning is a broad concept that includes both attitudinal and physiological dimensions, such as satisfaction, interest, orgasm, lubrication, and vaginal discomfort/pain (Lindner & Tantleff-Dunn, 2017; Rosen et al., 2000). In measuring sexual functioning, we focused specifically on orgasm (a short, intense sensation of physical pleasure usually accompanied by muscle contractions occurring in the pelvic/genital area; Meston et al., 2004). This included frequency of, satisfaction with, and ability to achieve orgasm during sexual activity (Rosen et al., 2000). Although orgasm is only one indicator of sexual functioning, we chose to focus on it because the experience of orgasm during sex is an important component of sexual pleasure and is a strong predictor of sexual satisfaction for women (Dienberg et al., 2023). Many predictors of women's orgasms have been studied, but some of the strongest correlates include communication about sexual desires; being in a long-term, monogamous relationship; emotional intimacy with a sexual partner; clitoral stimulation (as opposed to vaginal penetration only); and positive body image (for a review, see Arias-Castillo et al., 2023).
A large disparity exists between men and women regarding orgasm frequency during sexual activity, with heterosexual women reporting an orgasm rate of 65%, lesbian women reporting that they orgasmed 86% of the time, and heterosexual men reporting a 95% orgasm rate (Frederick et al., 2018). Feminist scholars regard this gap as an indicator of persisting social and relational inequalities between men and women, proposing that it may be attributed to differences in sexual socialization of men and women, which normalizes men's dominance and women's submission in the context of heterosexual relationships (Klein & Conley, 2022; Sanchez et al., 2012). This theory is plausible given that psychosocial factors are widely regarded as more closely linked to orgasm than physiological ones (Kontula & Miettinen, 2016; Mah & Binik, 2005). In addition, Kiefer et al. (2006) found that women primed with submission-related words reported greater difficulty experiencing arousal and orgasm, while Lentz and Zaikman (2021) found that women's sexual assertiveness predicted greater orgasm frequency.
Objectification theory aligns well with the proposed feminist explanation for orgasm inequality, as it suggests a concrete mechanism through which women may internalize harmful messages about sexual submission. When women experience sexual objectification in their family of origin, and in turn adopt a self-objectifying perspective, they may neglect their own sexual needs; instead, they may favor their partner's experience because they believe their primary job is to be pleasing to their partner, not to experience pleasure themselves. Additionally, sexual objectification in one's family of origin and self-objectification may predict greater body image self-consciousness during sex, and this anxiety about one's physical appearance may interfere with orgasmic abilities. Supporting this proposition, two studies (Robbins & Reissing, 2018; Steer & Tiggemann, 2008) found that women's body image self-consciousness during sex linked self-objectification to sexual dysfunction, sexual dissatisfaction, and sexual distress.
Finally, sexual objectification in one's family of origin and self-objectification may interfere with a woman's ability to openly communicate about her desires and be sexually assertive, in turn relating to fewer orgasms. Kahalon et al. (2024) found that sexual communication about one's sexual desires was the only significant factor linking self-objectification and sexual dysfunction (which included orgasm) among Israeli and U.S. heterosexual women. Non-significant variables included body shame, appearance anxiety, and sexual entitlement. In addition, more sexual assertiveness has been linked to experiencing orgasm during sex (Hurlbert, 1991; Lentz & Zaikman, 2021; Wongsomboon et al., 2022).
Relationship Status as Covariate
Women's sexual experiences are likely to vary as a function of their relationship status. Studies have indicated that women in long-term, partnered relationships experience greater frequency of sexual contact and better sexual functioning (Park & MacDonald, 2022; Sears-Greer et al., 2023). Thus, it is important to consider how relationship status may affect the relations among sexual objectification in one's family of origin, self-objectification, and sex-related outcomes. Two studies found that women in a current or exclusive romantic relationship scored lower on body image self-consciousness during sex than women not in a relationship (Steer & Tiggemann, 2008; Wiederman, 2000). Additionally, Ramsey and Hoyt (2015) found that women reporting on their current relationship (as opposed to women reporting on a past relationship) reported greater sexual communication about their sexual desires and more sexual desire. Further, Marcantonio and Jozkowski (2020) found that sexual refusal communication varied by relationship status, such that single individuals used more implicit, non-verbal refusal cues, and individuals in a relationship used more explicit, verbal refusal cues. Finally, Armstrong et al. (2012) indicated that women orgasm more often in committed relationships than in casual sexual encounters, because committed relationships are likely to include greater frequency of sexual behaviors that may lead to women's orgasm, as well as greater attention to women's orgasm. To ensure that variation in sex-related outcomes could be more confidently attributed to sexual objectification in family of origin and self-objectification in our study, we chose to control for the association between relationship status (i.e., not in a romantic relationship or in a romantic relationship) and sex-related outcomes.
Current Study
In the current study, we addressed several key gaps in the literature concerning sexual objectification and women's sexual functioning. Studies examining links between self-objectification and sex-related outcomes have focused most heavily on sexual victimization and safety anxiety/fear of rape, with a noticeable gap in the literature concerning self-objectification's associations with sexual behavior and sexual functioning (Kahalon & Klein, 2025). Furthermore, research on external interpersonal forms of sexual objectification has largely focused on those that occur in adulthood (Kozee et al., 2007; Hill & Fischer, 2008), neglecting experiences that occur earlier in life, often within the family in which one grows up. Our study advances extant literature by examining direct relations between sexual objectification in one's family of origin and sex-related outcomes (i.e., unique, isolated associations between predictor and outcome variables while controlling for/holding constant all other variables in a statistical model). We also investigated the role of self-objectification as a mediator—a third variable serving as a mechanism through which a predictor and an outcome may be associated with one another. In other words, we aimed to examine whether sexual objectification in family of origin is indirectly associated with sex-related outcomes through self-objectification. More specifically, we examined whether self-objectification linked sexual objectification in one's family of origin to body image self-consciousness during sex and two aspects of sexual agency (sexual communication assertiveness and sexual refusal assertiveness).
Additionally, we tested whether sexual objectification in family of origin and orgasm during sex were indirectly associated through multiple variables operating both consecutively and simultaneously. To contribute to optimal understanding of our proposed model, it is important to clarify the meaning of several statistical concepts: “serial,” “parallel,” “first-stage mediator,” and “second-stage mediator,” as outlined by Hayes (2018). Variables operating in serial are proposed to be associated with each other consecutively, such that one variable is related to the other in turn, or like links in a chain. Variables operating in parallel are examined simultaneously within the same statistical model and are not assumed to be associated with each other but may be associated with predictor and outcome variables. First-stage mediators are proposed factors linking a predictor to an outcome variable but are situated directly following the predictor variable (in other words, appearing first in the associational chain from predictor to outcome). Second-stage mediators are also proposed to play a role in linking a predictor to an outcome but are situated between the first-stage mediator and the outcome variable (in other words, appearing second in the associational chain from predictor to outcome). We aim to examine whether self-objectification (a first-stage mediator) predicts body image self-consciousness during sex, sexual communication assertiveness, and sexual refusal assertiveness in parallel (second-stage mediators) in the link between sexual objectification in one's family of origin and one aspect of sexual functioning (orgasm during sex) among women engaging in recent sexual activity. To provide a more stringent test of our hypotheses, we controlled for relationship status in our analyses. We hypothesized the following:
Higher sexual objectification in one's family of origin would be directly and indirectly related to more body image self-consciousness during sex, less sexual communication assertiveness, and less sexual refusal assertiveness via more self-objectification. In other words, we hypothesized direct relations from sexual objectification in family of origin to body image self-consciousness during sex, sexual communication assertiveness, and sexual refusal assertiveness, while holding constant all other variables in the model. Further, we hypothesized an indirect relation such that higher sexual objectification in family of origin would be related to more self-objectification, which would in turn be related to more body image self-consciousness during sex, less sexual communication assertiveness, and less sexual refusal assertiveness. More sexual objectification in one's family of origin would be directly and indirectly related to less orgasm in the past month among participants reporting recent sexual activity via more self-objectification (first stage mediator) and then through more body image self-consciousness during sex, less sexual communication assertiveness, and less sexual refusal assertiveness in parallel (second stage mediators). That is, greater sexual objectification in one's family of origin would be related to more self-objectification, which in turn would be related to more body image self-consciousness during sex, less sexual communication assertiveness, and less sexual refusal assertiveness. These three variables would then be related to less orgasm during sex. Further, we hypothesized that all possible direct and indirect effects would be significant.
Method
Participants
The initial sample consisted of 749 participants who provided informed consent and began our online survey. We removed (a) 35 participants who did not finish the survey (18 left the entire survey blank and 17 left at least one measure blank), (b) nine participants that did not participate seriously in the study (Aust et al., 2013), (c) four participants that failed two or more of our three attention checks (i.e., a question that asks for a specific response, and (d) one participant that identified as a man. These data cleaning procedures resulted in a final sample of 700 participants.
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 27 years old (M = 18.93; SD = 1.26). All participants reported they were assigned female at birth and identified as women. One percent (n = 9) also identified as nonbinary/genderqueer/gender nonconforming. Four of the nonbinary participants also identified as transgender. Participants identified as predominantly White (84%; n = 588), followed by 5% (n = 32) African American/Black, 4% (n = 31) Biracial/Multiracial, 4% (n = 27) Latin/a/x/e, 2% (n = 15) Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander, and 1% (n = 7) different race/ethnicity (e.g., Native American, Middle Eastern). Participants described their sexual orientation as 80% (n = 561) heterosexual, 13% (n = 90) bisexual, 2% (n = 15) as questioning, 2% (n = 14) pansexual, 2% (n = 13) lesbian/gay, 1% (n = 6) queer. One participant noted they “don't really care for a label.”
All participants were college students, with most (62%; n = 436) first year students, followed by 19% (n = 131) Sophomores, 13% (n = 88) Juniors, and 6% (n = 43) Seniors. In terms of social class, most participants were upper middle class (59%, n = 416), followed by 24% (n = 165) lower middle class, 8% (n = 58) working class, 7% (n = 52) wealthy class, and 1% (n = 9) poor class. Fifty-six percent of participants (n = 391) reported being in a romantic relationship, with most having a male partner (95%, n = 371). Percentages and frequency counts might not add up to 100% and 700, respectively, due to rounding and missing data.
Measures
Sexual Objectification in Family of Origin
We used the 8-item Sexual Objectification in Family of Origin Scale (Szymanski et al., 2024) to assess personal experiences of being objectified as well as witnessing family members objectify other women and/or themselves that occurred while growing up. Sample items are “Growing up, family members commented on the quality/attractiveness of my physical appearance” and “Family members made sexual comments about my body and/or appearance.” Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 5 (almost always). Higher mean scores indicate greater experiences of sexual objectification in one's family of origin. Szymanski et al. (2024) provided support for content validity (via expert review), structural validity (via exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses), construct validity (via correlations with mental health and body image variables in the expected directions), incremental validity (via relations with mental health and body image variables holding while controlling for interpersonal sexual objectification experiences and childhood sexual abuse), and reliability (αs = .89). For the current sample, α = .88.
Self-Objectification
We used the 14-item Self-Objectification Beliefs and Behaviors Scale (Lindner & Tantleff-Dunn, 2017) to assess self-objectification. We chose this measure to assess self-objectification because it has been shown to have stronger psychometric support and is a better predictor of sexual functioning than other measures of self-objectification. Sample items are “Looking attractive to others is more important to me than being happy with who I am inside” and “How sexually attractive others find me says something about who I am as a person.” Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Because we were interested in self-objectification as a holistic construct, we used full scale scores. This decision was supported by both factors (internalization of an observer's perspective and treating the body as if it is capable of representing the self) correlating with all our outcome variables in the same direction and with similar strength. Higher mean scores indicate greater self-objectification. Lindner and Tantleff-Dunn (2017) provided support for structural validity (via exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses), construct validity (via correlations in the expected direction with external and internalized objectification, body image variables, self-esteem, depression, disordered eating, and sexual functioning), and reliability (α's = .91–.92; test-retest reliability = .89). For the current sample, α = .91.
Body Image Self-Consciousness During Sex
We used the 15-item Body Image Self-Consciousness Scale (Wiederman, 2000) to assess body image self-consciousness during sex. Sample items are “The idea of having sex without any covers over my body causes me anxiety” and “During sexual activity, I am (would be) concerned about how my body looks to my partner.” Each item was rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale from 0 (never) to 5 (always). Higher mean scores indicate greater body image self-consciousness during sex. Wiederman (2000) provided support for structural validity (via principal components factor analyses), construct validity (via correlations in the expected direction with body mass index, perceived attractiveness, body dissatisfaction, self-esteem, social avoidance, sexual esteem, sexual anxiety, sexual assertiveness, and sexual avoidance), and reliability (α's = .93 and .94). For the current sample, α = .95.
Sexual Agency
We used the 16-item Sexual Communication Assertiveness and the 5-item Sexual Refusal Assertiveness subscales of the Hurlbert Index of Sexual Assertiveness (Avery et al., 2022; Hurlbert, 1991) to assess two core aspects of sexual agency. Sample items are “I communicate my sexual desires to my partner” and “It is hard for me to say no even when I do not want sex,” respectively. Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 0 (never) to 4 (all of the time). Higher mean scores indicate greater sexual communication and greater sexual refusal. Avery et al. (2022) provided support for structural validity (via exploratory factor analyses) and reliability (sexual communication α = .92 and sexual refusal α = .78). Hurlbert (1991) provided support for construct validity by demonstrating that sexually assertiveness was related to more sexual desire, sexual activity, sexual satisfaction, more orgasms during sex, and more relationship satisfaction among young adult married women. For the current sample, α = .92 for sexual communication and α = .69 sexual refusal. Due to the low alpha for scores on the sexual refusal subscale, we conducted an item analysis. Results indicated that by removing one item (“I am reluctant to describe myself as a sexual person”), alpha would increase to acceptable levels (α = .74). Thus, we used this 4-item measure in subsequent analyses.
Orgasm
We use the 3-item Orgasm subscale of the Female Sexual Function Index (Rosen et al., 2000), which assesses frequency of, satisfaction with, and difficulty achieving orgasm during sexual activity. A sample item is “Over the past 4 weeks, when you had sexual stimulation or intercourse, how often did you reach orgasm (climax)?” Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 to 5 with response options varying with each item (e.g., almost never or never to almost always or always; very dissatisfied to very satisfied). We were interested in women's recent (versus lifetime) experiences with orgasm, so we asked about their experiences in the past month. This aligns with Rosen et al.'s (2000) measure, which asks participants about their experiences in the past 4 weeks. Participants reporting no sexual activity in the past 4 weeks were not included in this variable. Higher mean scores indicate more orgasm. Rosen et al. (2000) provided support for content validity (via expert review), structural validity (via principal components analysis), construct validity (known group differences, with participants with sexual arousal disorder scoring lower than those without the disorder, and by demonstrating that it was related but conceptually distinct from relationship satisfaction), and reliability (α = .94; test-retest = .80). For the current sample, α = .95.
Procedure
After obtaining university institutional review board approval for our study, we recruited participants to take our online “Young Adult Women's Sexual Attitudes and Experiences Survey” through our psychology department human participants research pool. Study eligibility requirements included identifying as a woman, being 18 to 30 years old, having had a sexual experience with another person, and being physically present in the United States. After affirming our eligibility questions and indicating informed consent, participants completed the study measures which were presented in random order followed by a demographic questionnaire. We employed three inattentive responder items (i.e., asking participants to mark a particular response) and Aust et al.'s (2013) seriousness check item. After completing our survey, participants were automatically awarded course credit for research participation.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Our missing data analysis at the item level for our final sample indicated a trivial (0.13%) amount of missing data, with all items having < 1% of missing values, and 93% of participants having no missing data. To handle these missing data points, we used available case analysis at the scale level (Parent, 2013). Examination of absolute values for skewness (range = .24–.61) and kurtosis (range = .15–1.95) for each variable indicated sufficient univariate normality, using Weston and Gore's (2006) guidelines of skewness < 3 and kurtosis < 10. Examination of multivariate normality revealed two multivariate outliers (Mahalanobis distance p < .001), but they did not have a significant bearing on the overall model (highest Cook's distance = .03) so we retained them. For all regression analyses, variance inflation factors were < 10 and condition indexes were < 30, indicating that multicollinearity was not a problem (Field, 2013).
Means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations among our study variables are shown in Table 1. Sexual objectification in one's family of origin was positively correlated with self-objectification (r = .35) and body image self-consciousness during sex (r = .25) and negatively correlated sexual refusal (r = −.22). Furthermore, all our hypothesized mediator variables were correlated in the expected direction with their associated outcome variables. Relationship status (coded 1 = not in a romantic relationship; coded 2 = in a romantic relationship) was negatively correlated with body image self-consciousness during sex and positively correlated with sexual communication, sexual refusal, and orgasm (among the subsample reporting sexual activity in the past month).
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Study Variables.
Note: Relationship status coded 1 = not in a romantic relationship, 2 = in a romantic relationship.
p < .05.
Analyses Testing Hypothesis 1
To test for the direct and indirect effects proposed in Hypothesis 1, we used Hayes (2018) PROCESS SPSSv3 macro (Model 4) to test our three simple mediation models using the full sample. We used bootstrap analyses with 5,000 bootstrapping resamples and the bias corrected method to produce 95% confidence intervals. When the confidence interval does not include zero, indirect effects are significant (Hayes, 2018). We entered relationships status as a covariate in these analyses.
We found that sexual objectification in one's family of origin was directly (β = .09, p = .01) and indirectly related to body image self-consciousness during sex through self-objectification (mean indirect [unstandardized] effect = .21; SE = .03, 95% CI [.164, .267], β = .16). In addition, self-objectification (β = .46, p < .001) and relationship status (β = −.16, p < .001) were uniquely related to body image self-consciousness during sex. The variables in the model accounted for 28% of the variance in body image self-consciousness during sex scores.
We found that sexual objectification in one's family of origin was indirectly (but not directly) related to sexual communication through self-objectification (mean indirect [unstandardized] effect = −.05; SE = .02, 95% CI [−.081, −.029], β = −.06). In addition, self-objectification (β = −.18, p < .001) and relationship status (β = .30, p < .001) were uniquely related to sexual communication. The variables in the model accounted for 13% of the variance in sexual communication scores.
We found that sexual objectification in one's family of origin was directly (β = −.13, p < .001) and indirectly related to sexual refusal through self-objectification (mean indirect [unstandardized] effect = −.08; SE = .01, 95% CI [−.107, −.050], β = -.09). In addition, self-objectification (β = −.26, p < .001) and relationship status (β = .08, p = .02) were uniquely related to sexual refusal. The variables in the model accounted for 12% of the variance in sexual refusal scores.
Analyses Testing Hypothesis 2
To test for the direct and indirect effects proposed in Hypothesis 2, we used Hayes (2018) PROCESS SPSSv3 macro (Model 81) to test for the first stage (self-objectification) and second stage (body image self-consciousness during sex, sexual communication assertiveness, and sexual refusal assertiveness in parallel) in predicting orgasm, using the subsample of participants (n = 533) who reported sexual activity in the past month. PROCESS Model 81 estimates all parameters for a fully saturated mediation model with both serial and parallel mediation properties. Again, we controlled for relationship status and used bootstrap analyses with 5,000 bootstrapping resamples and the bias corrected method to produce 95% confidence intervals.
Among those participants who had engaged in recent sexual activity, we found that greater sexual objectification in family of origin was indirectly related to less orgasm via four pathways: (a) more self-objectification, (b) less sexual refusal, (c) more self-objectification and less sexual refusal in serial, and (d) more self-objectification and less sexual communication in serial (see Table 2). Further, sexual objectification in family of origin was not significantly and indirectly related to less orgasm via three pathways (a) more body image self-consciousness, (b) the serial pathway from more self-objectification to more body image self-consciousness, and (c) less sexual communication. Direct relations between variables are shown in Figure 1. The variables in the model accounted for 21% of the variance in orgasm scores.
Path model of variables predicting orgasm during sexual activity. Note: Based on the subsample of participants (n = 533) reporting engaging in sexual activity in the past month. Relationship status was entered as a covariate. Values reflect standardized coefficients. Solid lines indicate significant effects while dashed lines indicate nonsignificant effects. *p < .05.
Indirect Effects on Orgasm During Sexual Activity.
Note. Based on the subsample of participants (n = 533) reporting engaging in sexual activity in the past month. Relationship status was entered as a covariate. All values are based on unstandardized path coefficients.
p < .05.
Discussion
In their systematic review of research on self-objectification and sex-related outcomes, Kahalon and Klein (2025) concluded that scant research exists exploring antecedents of the negative effects of self-objectification on sex-related outcomes among women. Our study begins to fill this gap by exploring sexual objectification in one's family of origin as a potential risk factor. Sexual objectification in one's family of origin is a unique form of objectification that includes experiences of prioritizing physical attractiveness, body evaluation, and hearing sexually objectifying comments in one's family of origin while growing up (Szymanski et al., 2024). These experiences occur during an important developmental time (childhood/adolescence/young adulthood) and are communicated by important others (e.g., parents, siblings, grandparents) within the intimate context of the family, where attachment and trust issues are often at play (De Simone et al., 2026; Szymanski et al., 2024). Sexual objectification in one's family of origin has been shown to be related to, but conceptually distinct from, both interpersonal sexual objectification in adulthood and sexual abuse in childhood (Szymanski et al., 2024), supporting its distinction as a unique form of sexual objectification.
Our findings indicated that sexual objectification in one's family of origin was uniquely associated with self-objectification, body image self-consciousness during sex, and sexual refusal assertiveness. Supporting our Hypothesis 1, we found that more sexual objectification in one's family of origin was directly linked to more self-objectification. This finding is consistent with Szymanski et al.'s (2024) that individuals who experience greater levels of sexual objectification in their family of origin are likely to also display greater internalization of an observer's perspective on their bodies and adopt a view of themselves as a sexual object. We further found that sexual objectification in one's family of origin was associated with greater body image self-consciousness during sex and less sexual refusal assertiveness among young adult college women. Although our study measured a unique form of external sexual objectification which has not previously been linked to sexual outcomes among women, our findings align with previous studies showing associations between other forms of sexual objectification and similar variables. One such study is Ramsey and Hoyt (2015) who demonstrated direct links between sexual objectification from a romantic partner and sex-related variables, including sexual refusal, sexual communication, and body acceptance. Our findings align with this literature by showing that sexual objectification in family of origin, as a specific manifestation of external sexual objectification, is related to women's later perspectives on their own bodies, as well as their ability to communicate and assert their sexual preferences.
Lending additional support to our first hypothesis, we found that more sexual objectification experiences in one's family of origin were linked to greater body image self-consciousness during sex and both aspects of sexual agency (less sexual communication and less sexual refusal) through more self-objectification among the full sample. Thus, self-objectification was situated conceptually between sexual objectification in family of origin and body self-consciousness during sex/sexual agency, presumably serving as a mechanism through which these variables may have been associated with one another. These findings lend support both to the general propositions of objectification theory and to its specific relevance to women's sexual functioning. Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) emphasized in their description of objectification theory that exposure to sexually objectifying environments often results in various negative psychological outcomes for women largely through women's internalization and continual inward enactment of their external experiences of objectification. By demonstrating that self-objectification is a plausible mechanism linking sexual objectification in family of origin to sex-related outcomes, our study supports this proposition. Further, our findings align with previous research regarding the application of objectification theory to women's sexual functioning, lending support to the specific relevance of both external sexual objectification and self-objectification to women's sexual experiences (Calogero & Thompson, 2009; Steer & Tiggemann, 2008).
Supporting Hypothesis 2, we found that greater sexual objectification in family of origin did not uniquely predict less orgasm, but instead that the two variables were associated indirectly via four routes: (a) more self-objectification, (b) less sexual refusal, (c) the serial link from more self-objectification to less sexual refusal, and (d) the serial link from more self-objectification to less sexual communication. That is, more experiences of sexual objectification in one's family of origin were related to more internalization of those messages where a woman views herself as an object. This in turn, was related to more difficulty in communicating her sexual desires and refusing unwanted sex, which was ultimately related to less frequency of, ease of, and satisfaction with orgasm when engaging in sexual activity with another person. Our results support feminist theorizing about sociocultural factors that might contribute to women's satisfaction with and ability to orgasm during sex, suggesting that women's experience of orgasm is related to their earlier experiences of sexual objectification from their families and internalization of sexually objectifying messages (Klein & Conley, 2022; Sanchez et al., 2012). Our findings are also consistent with Kahalon et al.'s, (2024), which underscore the importance of sexual agency in understanding the objectification-sexual functioning/dysfunction links. Our study adds to Kahalon et al. by showing that sexual objectification in one's family of origin may be a correlate of self-objectification and sex-related outcomes and by including an additional component of sexual agency (i.e., sexual refusal assertiveness).
Contrary to Hypothesis 2, body image self-consciousness during sex was not an explanatory mechanism linking external and internalized forms of sexual objectification with orgasm. Further, it was not directly linked to orgasm in the multivariate model. This finding is surprising given that both theory and previous empirical studies identify body image self-consciousness during sex as a key mechanism linking self-objectification to sexual functioning (Robbins & Reissing, 2018; Steer & Tiggemann, 2008). However, it is consistent with findings demonstrated by Kahalon et al. (2024), who found that when examining both sexual agency and body image variables (such as appearance anxiety and body shame) simultaneously as mechanisms in the link between self-objectification and a broad measure of sexual dysfunction, only sexual agency was a significant predictor among women. It is notable that in our study as well as Kalahon et al.'s, women's thoughts and feelings about their own bodies may have mattered less in predicting sexual functioning than their manifest behaviors during sexual activity. Regarding orgasm specifically, Arias-Castillo et al. (2023) noted that certain types of sexual contact, such as clitoral stimulation are most likely to result in orgasm. It is possible that in this sample, women's ability to communicate to their partners about what kinds of stimulation they needed to reach orgasm, as well as to refuse sexual contact when they were feeling uninterested, was an important factor predicting their frequency of, satisfaction with, and difficulty achieving orgasm. The salience of outward sexual communication and refusal behaviors may have thus outweighed the role of women's internal evaluations of their bodies when the two factors were considered simultaneously, resulting in a non-significant finding for body self-consciousness during sex.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Although our study provides an important contribution to the literature on sexual objectification and its links to women's sexual outcomes, we acknowledge several notable limitations. First, we used self-report measures in our study, and thus our findings may be susceptible to accuracy recall biases. Additionally, although our cross-sectional design was appropriate for examining inter-relations among variables at one point in time, we are unable to support the existence of causal relations among variables or establish their temporal ordering. Future research employing longitudinal and experimental designs is needed to examine temporal and causal processes suggested in objectification theory and related theorizing. For example, future research could assess sexual objectification in one's family of origin in early adolescence, late adolescence, and then in early adulthood to determine if sexual objectification in one's family of origin influences sex-related outcomes over time.
Our sample was predominantly White, heterosexual, and highly educated. Thus, future research is needed using more diverse samples, as well as targeting specific subsamples of women (e.g., racial/ethnic minority women, lesbians, bisexual women, working class women) to determine if our findings generalize to these unique groups. For the latter, identifying group-specific factors (e.g., racialized sexual objectification, internalized heterosexism/monosexism) that contribute to women's self-objectification and sex-related outcomes is warranted. Additionally, although all participants identified as women, a small percentage also reported holding nonbinary/gender nonconforming and/or transgender identities. It is unclear whether these individuals may have experienced sexual objectification significantly differently from cisgender women, as evidence indicates that although gender nonconforming individuals are likely to adhere less to traditional gender roles than cisgender individuals, they may also be subject to the traditional socialization pressures aligning with the sex they were assigned at birth (Budge & Katz-Wise, 2019). Thus, it is plausible that gender non-conforming individuals assigned female at birth may experience lessened impacts of sexual objectification due to their lack of sole identification with the female gender. However, it is also feasible that due to their early socialization as girls and young women, these individuals had objectification-related experiences of similar severity and frequency to cisgender women, especially in their families of origin. Future scholarship could examine links between these variables exclusively in a sample of nonbinary individuals assigned female at birth to elucidate their specific patterns of endorsement of sexual objectification, self-objectification, and relevant sexual outcomes.
By focusing specifically on orgasm as our singular indicator of sexual functioning, we are constrained in the elements of women's sexual experiences we can assess in relation to self-objectification variables. To address this limitation, future research might explore the links between the variables assessed in our study and other sexual functioning outcomes such as sexual satisfaction, experiencing pain during sex, and sexual arousal. Examining additional mediators, such as sexual subjectivity, sexual emotional labor, and fear of rape, as well as moderators (e.g., internalized misogyny, body appreciation, and rape myth acceptance) in the objectification-sex related outcomes links are also fruitful lines of inquiry. Finally, it is notable that because we examined one distinct form of external sexual objectification in our model, it was not possible for us to speak to the unique contributions of multiple forms of sexual objectification to women's sexual outcomes. Future research is needed to examine the unique, additive, and interactive effects of various manifestations of sexual objectification (sexual objectification in one's family of origin, interpersonal experiences of sexual objectification, exposure to sexually objectifying media, romantic partner sexual objectification) on the indirect and direct relations proposed in our study as well as in objectification theory more broadly.
Practice Implications
In demonstrating significant direct and indirect links between sexual objectification in one's family of origin, self-objectification, and sexual outcomes, our study implicates the use of both insight and action-based interventions to help young adult college women have more positive and fulfilling sexual experiences. Our findings support the employment of consciousness-raising interventions that are often used in feminist therapy. These interventions focus on helping clients conceptualize their problems not as evidence of personal deficits, but as a natural reaction to experiences of oppression and marginalization (Brown, 2018). Consciousness-raising interventions may consist of open questions, reflective statements, and interpretations that encourage the client to explore their experiences of external and internal self-objectification and connect these phenomena to their current sexual difficulties.
Clinicians may direct clients to complete the Sexual Objectification in Family of Origin Scale as a clinical measure and collaboratively discuss the client's answers, or choose to explore these experiences through modeling open-ended questions after the measure's items (e.g., “when you were growing up, to what extent did members of your family make comments or judgements about yours or other women's bodies? What was that like for you to hear those things?”). Clinicians may also help clients reflect on how their childhood experiences shaped their beliefs about their own bodies, appearance, and sources of worth as a human being (e.g., “how do you think hearing family members comment on other women's bodies may have impacted your own self-image?”). Finally, clinicians may choose to use questions or interpretations to help clients understand how sexual objectification in one's family of origin and self-objectification may affect their current sexual experiences (e.g., “I wonder if you have difficulty communicating with your partner about what you want during sex because your early experiences taught you that it matters more that you are pleasing to others than if you are feeling pleasure yourself”).
Following the development of insight regarding links between sexual objectification experiences and sexual outcomes, clients’ orgasm experience may be improved by action-based interventions designed to reduce self-objectification. In showing that self-objectification is a meaningful predictor of women's sexual outcomes, our study findings suggest that women's body image self-consciousness and difficulties with sexual assertiveness/orgasm may improve if self-objectification is targeted as a focus of therapeutic intervention. Clinicians may choose to utilize a cognitive restructuring approach, helping clients identify, record, and modify beliefs and thoughts related to self-objectification (Szymanski et al., 2011). In addition to cognitive restructuring, clinicians may teach clients mindfulness skills during sexual activity to increase awareness of physical sensations and non-judgmentally observe self-objectifying thoughts. Empirical findings have demonstrated that both cognitive and mindfulness interventions predict modest improvements in women's sexual functioning, indicating that these strategies may also prove helpful when informed by an understanding of sexual objectification (Pereira et al., 2013; Stephenson & Kerth, 2017).
Conclusion
Our study is an initial step in answering Kahalon and Klein's (2025) call to expand the objectification theory framework by examining potential antecedents, as well as additional relevant constructs that were not originally proposed by Fredrickson and Roberts (1997), as they relate to understanding women's sexual functioning. We found that sexual objectification in one's family of origin is an important variable in understanding negative sexual experiences among young adult college women. In addition, our findings highlight the importance of self-objectification, sexual communication, and sexual refusal in understanding how sexual objectification in family of origin is linked to orgasm during sex. These results have direct, practical implications for psychotherapeutic practitioners, supporting the use of interventions targeting women's experiences of sexual/self-objectification to improve women's sexual health.
Footnotes
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.