Self-objectification and well-being in women's daily lives

Laboratory experiments and surveys show that self-objectification increases body shame, disrupts attention, and negatively predicts well-being. Using experience sampling methodology, the authors investigated self-objectification in the daily lives of 49 female college students. Building on the predictions of objectification theory, they examined associations between internalizing an observer's perspective on the self and psychological well-being, and examined the moderating roles of trait self-esteem and appearance-contingent self-worth. Within-person increases in self-objectification predicted decreased well-being, but this association was moderated by trait self-esteem and trait appearance-contingent self-worth; high self-esteem, highly appearance-contingent participants reported increased well-being when they self-objectified. Furthermore, perceived unattractiveness partially mediated the main effect and the three-way interaction: high self-esteem, highly contingent participants experienced smaller drops in well-being when they self-objectified, in part because they felt less unattractive. These results suggest that in daily life, some women receive a boost from self-objectification, although most women experience decreases in well-being when self-objectifying.     

Self-compassion increases self-improvement motivation

Can treating oneself with compassion after making a mistake increase self-improvement motivation? In four experiments, the authors examined the hypothesis that self-compassion motivates people to improve personal weaknesses, moral transgressions, and test performance. Participants in a self-compassion condition, compared to a self-esteem control condition and either no intervention or a positive distraction control condition, expressed greater incremental beliefs about a personal weakness (Experiment 1); reported greater motivation to make amends and avoid repeating a recent moral transgression (Experiment 2); spent more time studying for a difficult test following an initial failure (Experiment 3); exhibited a preference for upward social comparison after reflecting on a personal weakness (Experiment 4); and reported greater motivation to change the weakness (Experiment 4). These findings suggest that, somewhat paradoxically, taking an accepting approach to personal failure may make people more motivated to improve themselves.     

Rejection Sensitivity and Vulnerability to Self‐Directed Hostile Cognitions Following Rejection

We examined the hypothesis that rejection increases self‐directed hostile cognitions in individuals who are high in rejection sensitivity (RS). In four studies employing primarily undergraduate samples (Ns = 83–121), rejection was primed subliminally or through a recall task, and self‐directed hostile cognitions were assessed using explicit or implicit measures. Negative or neutral control conditions were used in three of the studies. Measures of RS were obtained in pretesting. High RS participants were more likely than low RS participants to report or show greater self‐directed hostile cognitions in rejection conditions, compared to control conditions. Results held when controlling for depressive symptoms, history of self‐directed hostile cognitions, and general hostility. RS may represent a unique vulnerability for self‐directed hostile cognitions, a predictor of self‐harmful behavior.     

Authors and publication practices

Although authors are usually considered to be the main perpetrators of research and publication misconduct, any person involved in the process has the potential to offend. Editors may breach ethical standards particularly with respect to conflicts of interest. In the same way that authors are now required to declare competing interests, notably commercial affiliations, financial interests and personal connections, so must editors. Editors can influence the chances of acceptance or rejection of a paper by reviewer selection. Reviewers should also be ready to disclose conflicts of interest. They must ensure that their reviews are evidence based and free from destructive criticism driven by self interest. It seems likely that ultimately we will progressively move towards 'open' peer review in which both the authors and the reviewers are known to each other. There is an urgent need for increased transparency of the relationship between editors and owners. The events of the last few years indicate that unless this interface is fully understood by all parties, conflicts may arise. There is also a need for a radical overhaul in the relationship between journals, journal editors and the biomedical industry. It is now increasingly accepted that all clinical trials should be registered in a centrally held database and that protocols should include the primary and secondary outcome measures and the intended approach to data analysis thereby avoiding opportunistic post hoc analyses. However, the even more radical proposal that journals should cease to publish clinical trials sponsored by industry deserves wider debate.