1 Recent Exposure to Centerfold Images, Sexual

RECENT EXPOSURE TO CENTERFOLD IMAGES, SEXUAL EXPLICITNESS, PAST EXPOSURE TO OBJECTIFYING MEDIA, AND THE ACTIVATION OF THE CENTERFOLD SYNDROME

Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation

Authors Wright, Paul

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.

Download date 29/09/2021 04:37:25

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/202999

RECENT EXPOSURE TO CENTERFOLD IMAGES, SEXUAL EXPLICITNESS, PAST EXPOSURE TO OBJECTIFYING MEDIA, AND THE ACTIVATION OF THE CENTERFOLD SYNDROME by

Paul J. Wright

______

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2011

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by Paul J. Wright entitled Recent Exposure to Centerfold Images, Sexual Explicitness, Past Exposure to Objectifying Media, and the Activation of the Centerfold Syndrome and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

______Date: 11/14/2011 Dale Kunkel

______Date: 11/14/2011 Edward Donnerstein

______Date: 11/14/2011 Dana Mastro

Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate’s submission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement.

______Date: 11/14/2011

Dissertation Director: Dale Kunkel

STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

SIGNED: Paul J. Wright

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To my mentors Dale Kunkel, Ed Donnerstein, Dana Mastro, and Stephen Russell, for always placing my humanity first, for treating me like an equal when I wasn’t, and for providing me with an outstanding doctoral education. And to my parents, for their patience, support, encouragement and love.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………….10

LIST OF FIGURES..…………………………………………………………………….11

ABSTRACT……….……………………………………………………………………..12

I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………….14

Sexual Explicitness………………………………………………………………….18

Past Exposure………………………………………………………………………19

Duration of Effects………………………………………………………………….19

Goals of Study…………………………………………………………………………20

Overview of Method………………………………………………………………...22

II. LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES…………….………………………24

Female Sexual Objectification in the Media: Extent and Male Exposure…………….25

Sexual Objectification in Media Content…………………………………………...25

Traditional Mainstream Media……………………………………………………..26

Traditional Adult Media…………………………………………………………....29

Newer Media………………………………………………………………………..31

Exposure to Mainstream Content…………………………………………………..32

Exposure to Adult Content………………………………………………………….33

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….34

TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued

Effects of Exposure: The Centerfold Syndrome…………………………………..…..34

Voyeurism………………………………………………………………………..…35

Sexual Reductionism…………………………………………………………….….36

Masculinity Validation…………………………………………………………...…38

Trophyism…………………..………..……………………………………………..39

Nonrelational sex………………………………………………………………...…40

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...…..42

Potential Moderating Variables……………………………………………………….43

Sexual Explicitness…………………………………………………………...…..43

Past Exposure……………………………………………………………………50

Duration of Effects……………………………………………………………….56

Summary……………………………………………………………………………....60

III. METHOD…………………………………………………………………………....62

Overview…………………………………………………………………………….....62

Participants……………………………………………………………………………..63

Materials……………………………………………………………………………….64

Procedure……………………………………………………………………………....67

Measures…………………………………………………………………………….…70

Dependent variables……………………………………………………………..…70

TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued

Voyeurism………………………………….……………………………...…..…71

Sexual reductionism………………………………………………………….…..71

Masculinity validation………………………………………………………...…71

Trophyism………………………………………………………………………..71

Nonrelational sex…………………………………………………….…………..72

Independent variable…………………………………………………………….…72

Past exposure………………………………………………………….…………72

Control variables………………………………………………………….…….….73

Religiosity……………………………………………………..……….……….…..…..74

Relationship status………………………………….……………..…….….……74

Childhood Attachment…………………………………………………………...74

IV: RESULTS………………………………………………………………………..…..75

Overview…………………………………………...…………………………….……75

Potential Confounds……………………………………………………………...…76

Hypotheses 1a-e: Main Effects of Exposure……………………………….……….76

H1a-e summary……………………….……………………………………...…..77

H2a-e: Moderating Role of Past Exposure………………………….……..……….77

H2a-e summary………………….…………………………………………….…81

RQ1a-e: Persistence of Effects Over Time……………………………..…………..82

TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued

RQ1a-e summary…………………………………………………………..…….87

Results Summary……………………………………………………………..……….88

V. DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………..………..…...90

Nature and Goals of the Present Study………………………………………..…..…..90

Summary of Findings……………………………………………………..………..….92

Interpretation of Findings……………………………………………...…………..….95

Lack of Main Effects of Recent Exposure and Moderating Effect of Past

Exposure……………………………………………………………………………95

Sexual Explicitness……………………………………………….……..………....102

Duration of Effects…………………………………………………………….…..108

Lack of Voyeurism and Trophyism Effect…………………..…………………..…111

Implications for Media Sex Research………………………………………………..116

The Effects of Female Objectifying Media on Males……………………………...116

The Effects of Sexual Explicitness……………………………………………...….119

Chronological Persistence of Media Sex Effects……………………………….....121

Effects of Media Sex on Adolescents and Young Adults..…………………..……..123

Limitations and Future Directions………………...……………………………..…..126

Measurement…………………………………….……………………………..….126

Testing effect………………….………………………………………...………126

TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued

Restricted range…………………………….…………………………………..127

First-order beliefs……………………………………….…………………..….128

Procedure…………………………………………….…………………………....129

Frequency manipulation………………………………………………….…….129

Recency manipulation…………………….…………………………………….130

Stimuli……………………………………………………………………………..131

Beyond centerfold images………………………………….…….…………….131

More explicit explicitness…………………………………..…….…………….131

Humanizing portrayals………………………………….………….…………..133

Realistic portrayals………………………………………..……….………...…133

Sample Characteristics…………………...……………………….………………134

Age…………………………………………………………………….………..134

Ethnicity……………………………..………………………..…………….…..135

Viewer involvement…..………………….……………….……………………..136

Media dependency………………………………………….…………….…….137

Final Summary and Conclusion……………………………...………………...…….137

Notes……………………………………...………………………………………….142

APPENDIX A: CENTERFOLD IMAGES……………………………………..……...163

APPENDIX B: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT………………………………193

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………...…….199

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations…………………….….143

TABLE 2: Condition Means and Standard Deviations for Each Centerfold

Syndrome Belief, Immediately Following Exposure………………………...…………145

TABLE 3: Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting T1 Voyeurism…………………...146

TABLE 4: Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting T1 Sexual Reductionism……..….147

TABLE 5: Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting T1 Masculinity Validation…...….148

TABLE 6: Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting T1 Trophyism…………………...149

TABLE 7: Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting T1 Nonrelational Sex……………150

TABLE 8: Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting T2 Voyeurism…………………...151

TABLE 9: Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting T2 Sexual Reductionism………...152

TABLE 10: Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting T2 Masculinity Validation……..153

TABLE 11: Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting T2 Trophyism………………….154

TABLE 12: Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting T2 Nonrelational Sex…………..155

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: Condition means for each centerfold syndrome belief,

immediately following exposure……….………………………………………………156

FIGURE 2: Interaction of condition and past exposure to objectifying media on T1 sexual reductionism……………………………………………..………..157

FIGURE 3: Interaction of condition and past exposure to objectifying media on T1 masculinity validation…...... ……….158

FIGURE 4: Interaction of condition and past exposure to objectifying media

on T1 nonrelational sex………………………………………………………..………159

FIGURE 5: Interaction of condition and past exposure to objectifying media

on T2 sexual reductionism……………………………………………………………..160

FIGURE 6: Interaction of condition and past exposure to objectifying media

on T2 masculinity validation………………………………………………….………..161

FIGURE 7: Interaction of condition and past exposure to objectifying media on T2 nonrelational sex…………………………………………………..…………….162

ABSTRACT

The chief goal of the present study was to test whether exposing young adult males to female centerfold images causes them to believe more strongly in a set of beliefs clinical psychologist Gary Brooks terms “the centerfold syndrome.” In addition to testing the straightforward effect of exposure to centerfold images on males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs, the present study explored the moderating potential of three variables: sexual explicitness of the centerfold images, males’ past exposure to objectifying media, and recency of exposure to the centerfold images.

Participants were randomly assigned to either a control condition that did not feature centerfold stimuli, a “nonexplicit” condition that featured female centerfolds who did not expose their nipples or genitalia, or an “explicit” condition that featured female centerfolds exposing either their nipples, genitalia, or both. Past exposure to objectifying media was assessed by asking participants how frequently they viewed pornography in the prior year. Items indexing the five centerfold syndrome beliefs – voyeurism, sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, trophyism, nonrelational sex – were administered immediately after exposure and approximately 48 hours after exposure.

Exposure to centerfold images had an immediate strengthening effect on the sexual reductionism and nonrelational sex beliefs of males who view objectifying media about once a month or less and this effect persisted approximately 48 hours after exposure. Likewise, exposure to centerfold images had an immediate strengthening effect on the masculinity validation beliefs of males who view objectifying media about once a month or less, and this effect persisted at a marginally significant level approximately 48

hours after exposure. No difference were found between males exposed to nonexplicit vs. explicit images.

These findings are consistent with a growing body of literature indicating that mainstream media sex can affect the sexuality of young people. Furthermore, the findings of the present study affirm the suspicions of some that objectifying depictions of females affect the sexual beliefs of some males in ways that are likely unrelated to sexual aggression but are still antisocial.

I. INTRODUCTION

Females are consistently portrayed as sexual objects in U.S. media, whether the genre is mainstream movies (Eschholz, Bufkin, & Long, 2002; Greenberg et al., 1993), adult films (Brosius, Weaver, & Staab, 1993; Cowan & Campbell, 1994), music videos

(Conrad, Dixon, & Zhang, 2009; Sommers-Flanagan, Sommers-Flanagan, & Davis,

1993), primetime sitcoms and dramas (Eaton, 1997; Grauerholz & King, 1997), televised professional wrestling (Woo & Kim, 2003), mainstream magazines (Krassas,

Blauwkamp, & Wesselink, 2003; Lambiase, 2007), adult magazines (Bogaert, Turkovich,

& Hafer, 1993; Krassas, Blauwkamp, & Wesselink, 2001), magazine advertisements

(Carpenter & Edison, 2005; Soley & Reid, 1988), video games (Behm-Morawitz &

Mastro, 2009; Dill & Thill, 2007), or U.S. based websites (Lambiase, 2003). Concern about the sexual objectification of females in the media recently led to an American

Psychological Association (APA) task force report (Zurbriggen et al., 2007) and to the development of the Healthy Media for Youth Act (Hamilton, 2010), which would allocate $250 million over the next five years to programs and research geared toward protecting young people from the adverse effects of mediated sexual objectification.

Quantitative social scientists interested in how females are affected by exposure to objectifying depictions have explored a wide array of outcomes, including body shame, body dissatisfaction, appearance and safety anxiety, self-objectification, body- monitoring, reduction in peak motivational experiences, lack of awareness of the inner body, environmental scanning, preoccupation with observers’ perspectives on the body, a shift from intrinsic to extrinsic motivations, depression, sexual passivity, reductions in

sexual satisfaction, eating disorders, inhibited cognitive and physical functioning, and low self-esteem (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Moradi & Huang, 2008; Zurbriggen et al.,

2007). In contrast, quantitative social scientists interested in how objectifying depictions affect males have devoted most of their attention to outcomes related to sexual aggression. The three primary questions guiding research on the effects of female- objectifying media on males have been: (1) Do objectifying media increase aggression toward females? (Donnerstein, 1980; Donnerstein & Berkowitz, 1981; Donnerstein &

Hallam, 1978; Malamuth & Centi, 1986); (2) Do objectifying media lead to rape myth acceptance? (Linz, 1985; Malamuth & Check, 1981; Malamuth & Check, 1985; Padgett,

Brislin-Slutz, & Neal, 1989); and (3) Do objectifying media make men more callous to female victims of sexual aggression? (Linz, Donnerstein, & Penrod, 1988; Milburn,

Mather, & Conrad, 2000;Weisz & Earls, 1995; Zillmann & Bryant, 1982).

Sexual socialization scholars have called for media researchers to explore outcomes on males from exposure to objectifying media that may be completely unrelated or only distally related to sexual aggression. Cowan and Campbell (1994) argue that the traditional focus on aggression has led researchers to overlook other socialization themes in objectifying media. Bogaert et al. (1993) acknowledge the importance of research connecting objectifying media depictions and sexual aggression, but contend that objectifying depictions teach males a variety of lessons about human sexuality.

McKenzie-Mohr and Zanna (1990) and Frable, Johnson, and Kellmann (1997) express concern that apprehension about male aggression has led researchers to pardon objectifying portrayals for the less immediately destructive but still antisocial values they

promote.

One scholar who has attempted a more complete articulation of the ways that males are sexually socialized by media that objectify females is Gary Brooks, a practicing clinical psychologist specializing in men’s issues and a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Baylor University. Brooks (1995, 1997) has developed a theory of male sexuality that he calls the “centerfold syndrome”1. The theory makes a number of predictions. For instance, it predicts the specific sexual views that are acquired and then activated again and again from exposure to female objectifying media, it predicts how males’ sexual and relational lives are negatively impacted by messages promoting female objectification, and it predicts the types of males who are most likely to “recover” from the centerfold syndrome.

The first set of predictions is the component of the theory of primary interest in this study. According to Brooks, sexually objectifying media socialize males to (1) believe that voyeurism is natural and inevitable; (2) engage in sexual reductionism (i.e., to think of females in terms of their bodies and to evaluate them in terms of their physical sexual appeal); (3) believe that their masculinity can be validated through sexual skill and conquest; (4) think of attractive females as trophies that can be used to gain social status; and (5) ascribe to a recreational, nonrelational sexual philosophy. These cognitions can be abbreviated to the following monikers: voyeurism, sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, trophyism, and nonrelational sex. While Brooks indicts portrayals from a number of media genres in his thesis, he devotes special attention to “centerfold” images such as those that appear in Playboy and Maxim magazines. Centerfold images are still-

shot photographs of scantily clad or nude females who are sexually posed but not sexually involved. According to Brooks (1995):

The centerfold has been one of the dominant cultural icons of the past half-

century…today’s centerfold is a racier, slicker, and glossier fantasy woman, even more

perfect and idealized than the pinup girl of the 1930s and 1940s. Her airbrushed

perfection permeates our visual environment and our consciousness, creating unreal

fantasies and expectations, imposing profound distortions on how men relate with women

and to women’s bodies... (p. 2)

In sum, Brooks argues that exposure to objectifying media leads to five different belief structures among males, which can be abbreviated as voyeurism, sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, trophyism, and nonrelational sex. While he maintains that all objectifying media contribute to the development and maintenance of these beliefs, he places special emphasis on the contribution made by centerfold images.

The preceding discussion leads to several important conclusions. First, the sexual objectification of females is quite commonplace in a variety of media. Second, we know more about how these depictions affect females than males. Third, a thoughtful argument regarding the ways objectifying portrayals affect males’ beliefs about sex and relationships has been put forth by Brooks (1995, 1997). Fourth, while Brooks argues that all objectifying media contribute to the beliefs he identifies, he devotes particular attention to centerfold images. To expand our understanding of how males are affected by objectifying depictions in general and to test Brooks’ theory in particular, the present study assesses whether exposing males to centerfold images leads to heightened agreement with statements indicative of the beliefs comprising the centerfold syndrome

in comparison to males who see no centerfold imagery.

Sexual Explicitness

A potential moderator of the effects of exposure to centerfold images on males’ sexual beliefs is sexual explicitness. Sexually explicit content has been defined as content that “depicts sexual activity in obvious, unconcealed ways” (Kelley, Dawson, &

Musialowski, 1989, p. 58). When the content in question is centerfold images, sexual explicitness might be defined as content that depicts the physical sexual features of models in obvious, unconcealed ways. This conceptualization is in alignment with content analytic work that has used differences in the amount of clothing worn by media models to distinguish the sexual explicitness of portrayals (Reichert & Carpenter, 2004;

Reichert, Lambiase, Morgan, Carstarphen, & Zavoina, 1999; Soley & Reid, 1988). For instance, since centerfolds in magazines such as Maxim do not display their nipples or genitalia these magazines are typically not considered “sexually explicit,” while Playboy and its variants are considered sexually explicit (Krassas et al., 2001, 2003).

Policy makers (Dixon & Linz, 1997), feminists (Cowan, 1992), and the general public (Gunter & Stipp, 1992; Gallup, 1985) have voiced particular concern about mediated depictions that are sexually explicit. Concern about sexually explicit portrayals that objectify females has been especially pronounced (Gunter, 2002). Opinions vary, however, as to whether the effects of sexually objectifying media on viewers is enhanced by sexual explicitness (Linz & Malamuth, 1993). Although content analysts have been interested in documenting the explicitness of sexual portrayals in a variety of genres

(Bogaert et al., 1993; Kunkel et al., 2002; Taylor, 2005a), effects research on the

moderating role of sexual explicitness is rare. Donnerstein and Smith (2001) and

Malamuth and Impett (2001) have called for research on sexual explicitness to determine its role (if any) in effects. The present study answers this call. Specifically, the present study explores whether males who are exposed to female centerfolds who fully reveal their breasts or genitalia express stronger agreement with statements indicative of the beliefs comprising the centerfold syndrome than males who are exposed to female centerfolds who do not fully reveal their breasts or genitalia.

Past Exposure

Another potential moderator of the effects of exposure to centerfold images on males’ sexual beliefs is past exposure to objectifying content. Specifically, the impact of recent exposure to objectifying depictions may depend on past exposure to similar content. While males who frequently view objectifying media may be more likely in general than males who less frequently view objectifying media to adhere to centerfold syndrome beliefs, the impact of recent, brief exposure to objectifying content on frequent viewers may be small. On the other hand, males who less frequently view objectifying content may be more dramatically affected by recent exposure. The potential moderating role played by past media exposure on the effects of recent media exposure has rarely been studied by media effects researchers. This interaction, however, is suggested by the psychological literature on priming, a literature that media effects scholars have increasingly turned to for theoretical insight (Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2009).

Duration of Effects

A practical (Eyal & Kunkel, 2008) as well as important theoretical (Roskos-

Ewoldsen, Klinger, & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2007) question about exposure to objectifying media is whether the effects of recent exposure persist over time. Roskos-Ewoldsen and his colleagues (Carpentier, Roskos-Ewoldsen, & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2008; Roskos-

Ewoldsen et al., 2007) have called for researchers to explore more thoroughly the time course of media effects. The present study explores whether the anticipated immediate effect of exposure to centerfold images on males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs persists 48 hours after exposure. The rationale for these time intervals will be outlined in the upcoming literature review.

Goals of Study

The present study investigates whether experimentally exposing young adult males to centerfold images of females affects males’ sexual beliefs. The present study has three goals.

The first goal of the study is quite general. Quantitative researchers interested in the effects of female objectifying media on males have most often been interested in outcomes related to sexual aggression. But a number of authors have suggested that males’ sexual beliefs are affected in numerous ways from exposure to objectifying media.

Consequently, systematic research into other types of exposure outcomes is needed. To be sure, the present study is not the first quantitative effort to explore exposure outcomes that are either unrelated or distally related to aggression. But the overall body of literature in this area is underdeveloped. At the level of quantity, the number of studies assessing non-aggression related outcomes pales in comparison to the number of studies assessing

aggression related outcomes. There are at least two issues at the level of quality. First, many existing studies are correlational and it is difficult for survey studies assessing outcomes believed to be caused by sexual objectification to parse out effects due to media objectification and effects due to other types of influences. The present study addresses this issue by employing an experimental design. Second, the selection of outcome variables in past studies has rarely been tied in with any specific theoretical framework.

The present study addresses this issue by exploring outcomes identified in a particular theory of male sexual socialization, Brooks’ (1995, 1997) centerfold syndrome.

The second goal of the study is more specific. This goal is to assess whether exposure to centerfold images – a particular genre of objectifying media – causes males to be in more agreement with the sexual beliefs identified by Brooks (1995, 1997). It is important to test whether centerfold images activate the beliefs Brooks describes for a number of reasons.

To begin, images of the centerfold variety appear with regularity in many venues such as magazines, magazine advertisements, commercial websites, and Internet newsgroups. Second, there is evidence that centerfold images are the most popular form of sexual media among males young (Brown & L’Engle, 2009) and old (Emmers-

Sommer & Burns, 2005; Paul, 2009; Winick, 1985). Third, the cognitive outcomes

Brooks proposes may negatively affect males’ lives. Specifically, such beliefs may lead to sexual dissatisfaction (Peter & Valkenburg, 2009a; Zurbriggen & Morgan, 2006), relational dissatisfaction (Burn & Ward, 2005), an inability to be genuinely vulnerable and intimate with women (Levant, 2003; Stoltenberg, 1989), foregoing chances for

relationships with compatible partners who do not live up to the media’s physical ideal for females (Kenrick & Gutierres, 1980; Kenrick, Gutierres, & Goldberg, 1989), conflicts with partners over the values espoused by sexually objectifying media (Stock, 1997), and being left by partners due to dependence or perceived dependence on objectifying entertainment (Wright, 2008). Finally, Brooks’ ideas have heuristic appeal for many scholars2 but have been criticized because he relies primarily on personal experience and clinical observations to support his claims (Barbee, 1998). In sum, formal tests of

Brooks’ formulations are needed because of the ubiquity and popularity of centerfold images, because the effects Brooks proposes have practical significance, and because

Brooks’ ideas are popular but not grounded in quantitative research.

The final goal of the study is to identify variables that may moderate the effects of exposure to objectifying media. First, the present study explores whether the effects of exposure to centerfold images on males’ sexual beliefs is more pronounced when males are exposed to explicit centerfold images. Second, the present study investigates whether past exposure to objectifying depictions moderates the effect of recent exposure to objectifying depictions. Third, the present study explores whether the effect of exposure to centerfold images on males’ sexual beliefs persists over time.

Overview of Method

The present study employs an experimental design. Participants will be randomly assigned to either a control group with no female centerfold stimuli, a “nonexplicit” group featuring female centerfolds who do not expose their nipples or genitalia, or an

“explicit” group featuring the same female centerfolds in the same surroundings attired in

the same manner who are now exposing either their nipples, genitalia, or both. Past exposure to objectifying content will be assessed by asking participants how frequently they viewed pornography in the prior year. The dependent variables are Brooks’ (1995,

1997) five centerfold syndrome beliefs: voyeurism, sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, trophyism, and nonrelational sex. Dependent measures will be administered to the same participants immediately after exposure and approximately 48 hours after exposure.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES

The media component of Brooks’ theory of male sexuality (1995) can be broken down into three parts. First, Brooks’ asserts that females are objectified quite frequently in the media. Second, he argues that males are exposed to these depictions with regularity, beginning early on in their lives. Third, he contends that the more males are exposed to objectifying portrayals of females the more they espouse the beliefs comprising the “centerfold syndrome.” The following beliefs are symptomatic of the centerfold syndrome: voyeurism is natural and inevitable; females’ value lies in their bodies and physical sexual appeal; masculinity can be validated through sexual skill and conquest; attractive females are trophies that can be used to gain social status; and sex is a recreational, nonrelational activity. These beliefs can be encapsulated by the following appellations: voyeurism, sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, trophyism, and nonrelational sex. According to Brooks, these beliefs are first acquired and then reactivated by exposure to objectifying media (see also Wyer et al., 1985).

The present study tests the final link in this sexual socialization sequence.

Specifically, the present study explores whether experimentally exposing young adult males to centerfold images of varying explicitness activates the beliefs Brooks identifies.

Centerfold images are the focus of the present study because they are especially scorned by Brooks, appear in many venues, are highly popular among males, and because we know very little about how exposure to these images affects males’ sexual beliefs. To justify focusing on this final step, however, it is important to establish that female objectification is quite common in the media and that males are exposed to objectifying

depictions from an early age onward. Evidence that exposure to objectifying portrayals is positively associated with beliefs akin to the centerfold syndrome is also important to review.

Female Sexual Objectification in the Media:

Extent and Male Exposure

According to Brooks (1995), males in the United States (a) grow up in a society where mediated depictions of objectified females are commonplace and (b) are exposed to objectifying depictions with regularity during their formative years. This section of the paper assesses the validity of these claims. First, the components of mediated sexual objectification are explicated. Second, the extent of female objectification in traditional mainstream media, traditional adult media, and newer media genres is reviewed. Third, mainstream and adult media exposure data are synopsized.

Sexual Objectification in Media Content

Although definitions of sexual objectification abound in the literature, a close inspection of the core ideas presented in these explications reveals a general consensus

(Bogaert et al., 1993; Brosius, Weaver, & Staab, 1993; Cowan & Campbell, 1994;

Eschholz et al., 2002; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Lanis & Covell, 1995; Rudman &

Borgida, 1995; Rudman & Hagiwara, 1992; Sommers-Flanagan et al., 1993; Vincent,

Davis, & Boruszkowski, 1987). Specifically, most authors agree that depictions are objectifying to the extent that they: (1) emphasize females’ body and appearance and deemphasize their personality, accomplishments, skills, and intellect; (2) focus heavily on

areas of the female body that are sexually titillating to males (e.g., breasts, bellies, thighs, buttocks); (3) present the female body as significant because of its erotic value; or (4) portray females as decorative ‘eye-candy’ or interchangeable ‘sexual play things.’ As

Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) put it, “The common thread running through all forms of sexual objectification is the experience of being treated as a body (or collection of body parts) valued predominately for its use to (or consumption by) others” (p. 174). Content analytic studies have often operationalized sexual objectification differently and have occasionally used a different phrase to describe sexual objectification (e.g.,

‘sexualization’ or ‘sexual degradation’). Nevertheless, all inquiries that have explicitly attempted to address this issue have been guided by one or more of the elements of sexual objectification just outlined.

Not all media genres that have been accused of sexual objectification have received attention from the academic community. Nevertheless, a fair portion of the media environment has either been analyzed for objectifying portrayals or has been analyzed for other types of content that provide clues into the extent of objectification in these genres. The genres selected for analysis here either (a) have a demonstrated history of sexually objectifying content, or (b) have been accused of featuring objectifying portrayals.

Traditional Mainstream Media

Four traditional mainstream media genres have been content analyzed for objectifying depictions of females: magazines, music videos, primetime television, and feature films. In line with Brooks’(1995, 1997) concerns about the effects of still-shot

photos of sexualized females, more attention has been paid to sexual objectification in magazine advertisements than in any other forum (Baker, 2005; Busby & Leichty, 1993;

Carpenter & Edison, 2005; Kang, 1997; Lindner, 2004; Plous & Neptune, 1997; Reichert,

2003; Reichert & Carpenter, 2004; Reichert et al., 1999; Rudman & Hagiwara, 1992;

Rudman & Verdi, 1993; Soley & Kurzbard, 1986; Soley & Reid, 1988; Sullivan and

O’Conner, 1998; Ward, 2003). The primary way advertising studies have operationalized sexual objectification is “the degree of dress and undress of models portrayed in ads”

(Soley & Kurzbard, 1986, p. 47). The two key findings from this body of literature are (a) female models in magazine advertisements are often scantily clad and (b) female models have become more clothing averse over time.

For instance, Reichert and Carpenter (2004) compared advertisements from 1983,

1993, and 2003 in men’s magazines such as Esquire. In 2003, 78% of ads with females featured a female that was suggestively dressed (e.g., wearing a short skirt or a cleavage revealing top), partially clad (e.g., wearing a bathing suit or lingerie), or nude. This figure was up from 53% in 1993 and up from 30% in 1983. Reichert (2003) addressed the question of whether magazines targeting young adults are especially likely to feature advertisements with scantily clad models by comparing magazines such as Rolling Stone to magazines such as Forbes. This study used a two category coding scheme. Models dressed demurely (e.g., in modest gowns or long skirts) were not viewed as objectified.

Models who wore suggestive attire (e.g., short skirts), partial attire (e.g., lingerie), or were nude were viewed as objectified. Advertisements in magazines targeting young adults were 1.65 times more likely to feature objectified models.

Studies of female images selected by magazine editors are far less prevalent than research into the images selected by magazine advertisers (Krassas et al., 2001). Several studies, however, have looked at magazine images selected by editors of lifestyle magazines targeting adolescent and young adult males (Krassas et al., 2003; Lambiase,

2007; Taylor, 2005a). These studies indicate that sexually objectifying images of females are quite frequent in magazines read by adolescent and young adult males. For instance, a study of sex-focused articles in Maxim, FHM, and Stuff magazines published between

1997 and 2003 found that 92% were accompanied by provocatively attired females.

The sexual objectification of females in music videos occurs with some regularity, has persisted over time, and is not unique to any one musical genre (Andsager & Roe,

1999; Conrad, Dixon, & Zhang, 2009; Gow, 1990; Seidman, 1992; Sommers et al., 1993;

Vincent et al., 1987). As illustration, an analysis of MTV videos aired during the mid-

1980s found that 57% of females were objectified in some way, such as being cast as decorative background objects or clad in seductive apparel. Likewise, a study of music videos aired on Country Music Television during 1997 found that 58% of videos featuring a female artist showed the artist in alluring clothing or suggestively nude

(Andsager & Roe, 1999). A decade later, a study of popular videos airing on MTV, Black

Entertainment Television, and VH1 found a powerful association between misogynistic themes and the appearance of females in music videos, indicating that a high proportion of females in the videos were sexually objectified (Conrad et al., 2009).

Several studies have examined sexual objectification on primetime television

(Eaton, 1997; Grauerholz & King, 1997; Lampman et al., 2002; Ward, 1995). These

studies found that sexual objectification occurs through both the attire female characters are outfitted in and the verbal comments characters make about females. For instance, a study of promotional advertisements for programs airing on major broadcast networks found that 31% of female characters were clad in scanty or tight-fitting clothing and that networks with more programming for adolescent and young adult males were especially likely to feature provocatively attired females (Eaton, 1997). Similarly, an analysis of sexual statements made on primetime programs popular with adolescents found that 15% of all sexual comments were about males valuing females for their physical attributes

(Ward, 1995).

The few mainstream movie studies that have quantitatively assessed depictions that speak to the issue of female objectification suggest that females in film are also objectified. To illustrate, an analysis of R-rated films popular with young people found that females were featured nude four times as often as males (Greenberg et al., 1993).

These instances of nudity primarily occurred in sensual contexts, such as nude dancing and undressing. Similarly, a study of the top grossing box office films of 1996 found that

63% of females were portrayed in stereotypical roles such as dancers or models. The authors worried that these depictions would “continue the objectification of women” and

“reinforce sexist stereotypes that base the value of females on their sexual attractiveness at a young age” (Eschholz & Bufkin, 2002, p. 323).

Traditional Adult Media

The two traditional adult content delivery mechanisms that have drawn the attention of content analysts are adult films and adult magazines. Feminist writers have

argued that adult entertainment casts females as “anonymous, panting playthings, adult toys, dehumanized objects to be used…and discarded” (Brownmiller, 1975, p. 394).

Although content analyses of adult films are relatively rare, the studies that have been conducted provide support for this general claim (Brosius et al., 1993; Cowan &

Campbell, 1994; Cowan, Lee, Levy, & Snyder, 1988). A study by Brosius et al. (1993) is perhaps the most informative. These authors analyzed a sample of 50 heterosexually themed adult films released between 1979 and 1988. Actresses in these films were young and during sexual scenes were attired in provocative apparel such as lingerie and high heeled shoes. These findings are indicative of objectification through overvaluation of physical appearance and physical sexuality. Additionally, 36% of sexual scenes involved female prostitutes, and prostitution is the archetypal example of men treating women as sexual objects. Finally, while males nearly always climaxed, less than 1% of scenes clearly depicted females having an orgasm. This finding is indicative of objectification through the depiction of females as existing for the sexual gratification of males.

Studies of non-violent objectification in adult magazines have focused on the model for all centerfold media: Playboy. Images in Playboy have become more explicit over time (Bogaert et al., 1993). For instance, 30% of female photos in 1965 fully exposed models’ breasts, whereas the percentage increased to 53% in 1995. Similarly, in

1965 no female photos revealed women’s genitalia whereas 11% did in 1995 (Krassas et al., 2001). The general opinion of analysts who have explored the imagery of Playboy is that the magazine “presents women as sexual objects who should seek to attract and sexually satisfy men” (Krassas et al., 2001, p. 754).

Newer Media

Video games and websites are the “new media” platforms that have drawn the ire of contemporary commentators concerned about the ways media depictions sexually socialize youth. Adult websites have been the source of most concern (Thornburgh &

Lin, 2002). Unfortunately, formal content analyses of adult materials online have been few and far between. Results from two early studies of photographs posted to sexual

Usenet message boards, however, conform to the idea that the types of depictions of central interest to the present study – photos of sexually posed but not sexually involved persons – are widely available on online message boards (Mehta, 2001; Mehta & Plaza,

1997). Furthermore, the types of centerfold depictions available in adult magazines offline are also available at these magazines’ online variants (e.g., Playboy.com,

Penthouse.com, Perfect10.com, Hustler.com, Swankmag.com, Barelylegal.com,

Legshow.com) as well as online only venues (e.g., Lightspeedgirls.com, Metart.com).

Non-adult websites also feature centerfold images (Lambiase, 2003). Professional websites with nonexplicit centerfold images can be broken down into two categories. The first category consists of sites whose primary product is objectified women, but that also feature other content (e.g., gaming, entertainment, sports, technology). Examples of such sites are Maxim.com, FHM.com, and Oyemag.com. The second category consists of sites whose product line is primarily non-centerfold content, but that also feature centerfold images. For instance, Muscleandfitness.com is primarily devoted to exercise and diet tips, but also features galleries of objectified women. Similarly, Surf.transworld.net mainly features content related to ocean surfing, but also contains photos of bikini-clad females.

Last, just as user-generated content sites feature nude centerfold type images (Mehta,

2001; Mehta & Plaza, 1997), they also feature provocatively posed but not nude images of females. Examples of popular user-generated photo posting sites are Flickr.com,

Webshots.com, Photobucket.com, Picasaweb.google.com, and Smugmug.com.

The findings of Beasley and Standley (2002) and Burgess et al. (2007) synopsize the video game research. Burgess et al. (2007) analyzed video game covers for X-Box,

PlayStation2, and Nintendo Gamecube games. Sixty-three percent of female characters were portrayed in sexualized ways (e.g., with breasts that were “perfectly round spheres that seem immune to gravity” and “clothing such as a leather dominatrix costume,” p.

423). Thirty-nine percent of female characters seemed to be included as only decorative

“eye candy” (p. 423). Beasley et al. (2002) assessed Nintendo 64 and PlayStation characters that appeared over the course of game play. Fifty percent of female characters were clad in revealing tops, 31% displayed their cleavage, and 41% had unrealistically large breasts. These studies indicate that the sexual objectification of females has carried over to the realm of video games.

Exposure to Mainstream Content

Brooks (1995) argues that young people in the United States are exposed to media with objectifying content early on in their lives. National data gathered by the Kaiser

Family Foundation (Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010; which studied 8-18 year olds) and

Nielsen (2009; which focused on 12-17 year olds) support this position. First, the average

8-18 year old male spends approximately 30 hours a week watching television (Rideout et al., 2010), and sitcoms, dramas, and music videos are three of youths’ most preferred

genres (Nielsen, 2009). Second, the average 8-18 year old male spends about seven hours a week watching movies (Rideout et al., 2010) and it is common for youth under the age of 18 to see R-rated movies (Greenberg et al., 1993). Third, 8-18 year old magazine readers today spend about three and a half hours a week reading magazines (Rideout et al., 2010), encouraging companies to spend close to $250 million dollars on ads in “teen centric” periodicals (Nielsen, 2009). Fourth, males 8-18 spend about 10 and a half hours a week playing video games (Rideout et al., 2010). Fifth, youth aged 12-17 are online more than 14 hours a month (Nielsen, 2009). In sum, whether the genre is video games or music videos, feature films or prime-time comedies, youth in the U.S. spend significant amounts of time with media genres known to contain sexually objectifying content.

Exposure to Adult Content

The use of adult content is morally taboo for many people (Linz & Malamuth,

1993). Consequently, self-report analyses may underestimate actual exposure patterns.

Innovative techniques such as the use of covert web monitoring software are beginning to emerge that circumvent dependence on self-report measures (Salazar, Fleischauer,

Bernhardt, & DiClemente, 2008), but at this time interested scholars must rely on self- report data to come to conclusions. Even self-report studies show that many youth are exposed to adult content, however. For instance, Brown and L’Engle (2009) found that

40% of southeastern male 7th and 8th grade students reported having seen adult content online and a national study found that just over 50% of 14-15 year old males reported exposure to adult content online (Wolak, Mitchell, & Finkelhor, 2007). Young males in the United States found ways to access adult content well before the Internet made such

acquisitions elementary, however. As illustration, early research by Ramsey (1943a,

1943b) showed that it was common to find that boys’ first sexual arousal occurred as a result of exposure to nude females in magazines or films. Similarly, a study of approximately 600 high school students found that males had already read about 16 adult magazines (Bryant, 1985).

Conclusion

The studies reviewed in the first part of this section indicate that female sexual objectification occurs quite regularly in both mainstream and adult media content.

Exposure statistics show that U.S. youth spend a good part of their lives attending to media outlets known to sexually objectify females. Indeed, youth spend “more time with media than in any other activity besides (maybe) sleeping” (Rideout et al., 2010, p. 1).

When the content data and use data are considered in tandem, the implication is clear:

The average male is frequently exposed to mediated depictions of sexually objectified females during his formative years, just as Brooks’ (1995) contends.

Effects of Exposure:

The Centerfold Syndrome

What effect does exposure to female objectifying media have on males?

According to Brooks, sexually objectifying depictions of females socialize males to (1) believe that voyeurism is instinctive and unavoidable; (2) appraise females in terms of their bodily sexual appeal; (3) believe that their masculinity can be confirmed through sexual dexterity and conquest; (4) think of attractive females as trophies that can be used

to gain social standing; and (5) ascribe to a casual, nonrelational sexual philosophy.

These cognitions can be condensed to the following appellations: voyeurism, sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, trophyism, and nonrelational sex. Although research on the association between exposure to centerfold images specifically and these beliefs is scant, research on these or similar outcomes and exposure to other genres known to objectify females is more common. The purpose of this section is to explore the validity of Brooks’ claim that exposure to media that objectify females is positively related to the endorsement of beliefs akin to voyeurism, sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, trophyism, and nonrelational sex.

Voyeurism

Brooks (1995) argues that the contemporary media environment teaches males

“that physically attractive women’s bodies are the most magnificent spectacles in nature”

(p. 1) and that females are “beauty objects” (p. 118) who “were put on this earth to tantalize men” (p. 41).

Several correlational and experimental studies provide evidence consistent with claims along these lines. As illustration, Ward (2002) surveyed undergraduates about their media habits and sexual views. She found that the more males viewed music videos, the higher they scored on a measure that included the item “It is natural for a man to want to admire or ogle women and to comment on their bodies, even if he has a girlfriend” (p.

14). Experiments using music videos as stimuli have generated similar results. Ward,

Hansbrough, and Walker (2005) demonstrated that high school students are more likely to endorse statements such as “There is nothing wrong with men whistling at shapely

women” and “Women should not be afraid to wear clothes that show off their figure; after all, if you’ve got it flaunt it” if they have been exposed to music videos that objectify females (p. 162). Kistler and Lee (2010) found that male undergraduates who had been exposed to objectifying music videos were more likely than male undergraduates who did not see videos with pronounced objectification themes to agree with statements such as “When woman are out at a club, it is okay to think of them as

‘eye candy’, and “It is okay to evaluate women’s bodies as they pass by on the street” (p.

76). Experimental work using prime-time comedies and dramas as stimuli have yielded similar results (Ward & Friedman, 2006). In sum, there is some quantitative evidence to support the claim that exposure to media depictions of females as sexual objects exacerbates males’ voyeuristic predilections.

Sexual Reductionism

Males engage in sexual reductionism when they think of females in terms of their bodies and evaluate them in terms of their physical sexual appeal. Brooks (1995) gives the example of males talking “of their attraction to women in dehumanizing terms based on the body part of their obsession – ‘I’m a leg man,” or “I’m an ass man” as indicative of sexual reductionism (p. 4). A number of studies have found that exposure to objectifying media relates positively to dependent measures akin to the concept of sexual reductionism. For example, Hatoum and Belle (2004) found that the more undergraduate males read centerfold magazines such as Maxim and Stuff the more likely they are to believe that only physically attractive females are worthy of romantic pursuit. Similarly,

Zurbriggen and Morgan (2006) discovered that the more undergraduates view reality

dating programs the more they agree with statements such as “In dating it is all about appearances” and “Using her body and looks is the best way for a woman to attract a man” (p. 5). Peter and Valkenburg (2009b) provided evidence that sexual reductionism and exposure to sexual media may constitute a reciprocal relationship. Specifically, they found that scores on an index comprised of items such as “There is nothing wrong with men being primarily interested in a woman’s body” (p. 416) were both predicted by exposure to online adult content and predicted exposure to online adult content in a three- wave panel study of Dutch adolescents.

Experimental studies also buttress Brooks’ assertion about the role of objectifying media portrayals in female sexual reductionism. Two studies are particularly notable for their innovative dependent measures and external validity. McKenzie-Mohr and Zanna

(1990) first either did or did not expose male undergraduates to nonviolent heterosexual adult film content. Second, participants interacted with a blind-to-condition female confederate who interviewed them about their university experiences. Results showed that among masculine males, viewing adult video content (a) led to more sexually motivated communication (as rated by the confederate) and (b) increased appearance- based recollections of the confederate. Rudman and Borgida (1995) conducted a similar experiment, but used sexually objectifying television commercials as stimuli. Results of this analysis showed that being primed by sexually objectifying commercials led to (a) increased cognitive accessibility of sexual object schemas for females; (b) more sexist verbal communication with the confederate; (c) heightened recall of the confederate’s physical appearance; and (d) the perception among both the confederate and independent

observers that participants were treating the confederate as a sexual object. To conclude, a number of studies exploring diverse stimuli and samples and using different methods have found that exposure to objectifying media is positively associated with outcome variables indicative of a sexually reductionistic view of females.

Masculinity Validation

Masculinity validation refers to the belief that one’s masculinity can be validated through sexual skill and conquest, particularly with beautiful women. Brooks (1995) identifies female objectifying media as an important contributor to this phenomenon:

“When women are envisioned as sexual objects and made the centerpiece of men’s visual world, they become imbued with enormous psychosocial power. They are seen as having invaluable manhood tokens that they may, or may not, choose to dispense” (p. 5). Several studies suggest that males are influenced by these messages. Experimentally, Ward et al.

(2005) demonstrated that music video exposure increases adolescents’ agreement with statements such as “Something is wrong with a guy who turns down a chance to score with a woman” (p. 162). Ward (2002) found a similar pattern of associations in a survey study of undergraduates. Ward et al. (2006) showed that the more undergraduate males read male-targeted magazines such as Maxim and GQ the more likely they are to subscribe to a stereotypically masculine ideology. Similarly, Brown and L’Engle (2009) discovered a positive over-time association between exposure to adult materials such as

Playboy and Penthouse and adolescents’ agreement with statements such as “A guy should always be ready for sex” (p. 137).

Given that the sexual suave and skill of male characters in objectifying media

may conflict with male viewers’ real-life sexual experiences, media exposure may leave many males feeling “unmanly” (Brooks, 1995, p. 7). No study has tested this premise directly, but several studies either suggest or demonstrate that exposure to sexually objectifying media makes males less sexually satisfied (Baran, 1976a, 1976b; Peter &

Valkenburg, 2009a; Zurbriggen & Morgan, 2006) and more anxious (Aubrey & Taylor,

2009; Johnson, McCreary, & Mills, 2007), which could be related to feelings of or concerns about emasculation. For instance, Peter and Valkenburg’s (2009a) three-wave panel study of Dutch adolescents found that T1 exposure to objectifying materials predicted T2 sexual dissatisfaction and T2 exposure predicted T3 sexual dissatisfaction.

Regarding feelings of anxiety, Aubrey and Taylor (2009) demonstrated experimentally that being exposed to centerfold images heightens males’ appearance anxiety. Aubrey and Taylor (2009) argue that this is because the physically attractive male “is the man who is romantically successful with thin, attractive women” (p. 29). From a centerfold syndrome perspective, this anxiety is due to males’ fear of masculinity invalidation via female rejection.

In sum, one way males validate their masculinity is through sexual skill and conquest. While a variety of factors may contribute to this view of self-validation, Brooks argues that the media are a contributing factor. Several experimental and correlational studies directly and indirectly support his contention.

Trophyism

Whereas masculinity validation refers to males’ using females to enhance appraisals of the self, trophyism refers to males using females to enhance their social

status. More directly, trophyism refers to the belief that males’ position in the social hierarchy is determined in large part by their sexual conquests.

Although depictions reflecting a trophyism mentality are known to occur in youth-preferred media (Ward, 1995), few studies have explored the effects of such depictions on young people. The few experimental (Ward et al., 2005) and survey (Ward,

2002) studies that have been conducted support Brook’s position. Specifically, these studies found that exposure to media known to sexually objectify females was associated with agreement with statements such as “Men who are ‘good with ladies’ and who can get any woman into bed are cool” and “Being with an attractive woman gives a man prestige (e.g., a trophy date)” (Ward, 2002, p. 14; Ward et al., 2005, p. 162). To conclude, although the literature relevant to trophyism is quite nascent the few studies that have been conducted suggest that Brooks may be correct in his assertion that objectifying media encourage males to see females as trophies that can be used to gain social power.

Nonrelational Sex

A nonrelational approach to sex is characterized by the view that sexual relations without intimacy, commitment, or emotional attachment are both desirable and appropriate. In sexually objectifying media, “sex is presented to men as separate from intimacy and relationships, as a biological need with physical attraction as the stimulus”

(Brooks, 1995, p. 99).

Studies of exposure to television programming known to objectify females have linked exposure to nonrelational beliefs about sex. Experimentally, college-aged males are more likely to agree with statements such as “I believe that sexual intercourse is

acceptable for me when I’m casually dating my partner” after they have been exposed to music videos that objectify females (Kistler & Lee, 2010, p. 76). Likewise, undergraduates who are exposed to a music video with “erotic” themes are more likely than undergraduates who have not been exposed to such a video to agree with the statement “Over a period of time, I think it is better to have sexual relationships with different people, rather than just one person” (Calfin et al., 1993, p. 478). Similar results occur when the television genres in question are comedies and dramas. High school students who watch more prime-time programming see sex as more recreational (Ward &

Friedman, 2006) and the more male undergraduates identify with characters on network comedies and dramas the more likely they are to subscribe to nonrelational sexual views

(Ward & Rivadeneyra, 1999).

Research on centerfold magazine exposure and nonrelational sexual beliefs has produced results in accordance with Brooks’ assertions as well. Specifically, reading magazines such as Maxim is associated with male undergraduates’ belief that sex outside of established relationships is acceptable (Taylor, 2006). Exposure to adult content – whether online or offline – appears to have similar effects on viewers. Regarding online adult content, Dutch (Peter & Valkenburg, 2008), Taiwanese (Lo & Wei, 2005), and U.S. youth (Braun-Courville & Rojas, 2009) report more nonrelational sexual beliefs when they attend to more adult materials online. For instance, the more adolescents report viewing sexually explicit online materials the more likely they are to agree with statements such as “The best sex is with no strings attached” and “I don’t need to be committed to a person to have sex with them” (Braun-Courville & Rojas, 2009, p. 159).

Regarding offline adult content, experimental exposure to conventional nonviolent adult videos results in more favorable attitudes towards premarital sex, extramarital sex, tolerance for affairs, and acceptance of both men and women having multiple sexual partners (Zillmann & Bryant, 1988). In sum, a rather substantial body of research links nonrelational sexual attitudes to exposure to a variety of media genres known to objectify females.

Conclusion

Brooks (1995, 1997) argues that sexually objectifying media socialize males to

(1) believe that voyeurism is instinctive and unavoidable; (2) reduce females to the status of sexual objects; (3) believe that their masculinity can be confirmed through sexual dexterity and conquest; (4) think of attractive females as trophies that can be used to gain social standing; and (5) ascribe to a casual, nonrelational sexual philosophy. The extent of support for this aspect of Brooks’ theory varies somewhat for each centerfold syndrome belief, although no belief has a massive literature associated with it. Support is strongest for the nonrelational sex link, as more studies have investigated this belief than any of the other beliefs. Research on the link between exposure to objectifying media and stronger voyeurism, sexual reductionism, and masculinity validation beliefs has been rarer, but the studies that do exist generally align with Brooks’ contentions. Research on trophyism beliefs has been especially scarce, but at least one experiment and one survey provide support for Brooks’ assertion that objectifying depictions lead males to think of females as trophies that can be used to gain social leverage.

In sum, the body of research connecting exposure to objectifying media with

beliefs among males analogous to Brooks’ centerfold syndrome beliefs may be described as suggestive but nascent. A modest body of correlational and experimental studies have linked exposure to objectifying media with beliefs akin to those comprising the centerfold syndrome. More studies are needed, however, before confident conclusions can be made.

Studies using centerfold stimuli are especially needed, given the ubiquity and popularity of these images and the particular attention Brooks pays to this genre of objectifying media.

Potential Moderating Variables

Sexual Explicitness

When the content in question is centerfold images, sexual explicitness might be defined as content that depicts the physical sexual features of models in obvious, unconcealed ways. This conceptualization is in alignment with content analytic work that has used differences in the amount of clothing worn by media models to distinguish the sexual explicitness of portrayals (Reichert & Carpenter, 2004; Reichert, Lambiase, Morgan,

Carstarphen, & Zavoina, 1999; Soley & Reid, 1988). For instance, since centerfolds in magazines such as Maxim do not display their nipples or genitalia these magazines are typically not considered “sexually explicit,” while Playboy and its variants are considered sexually explicit (Krassas et al., 2001; 2003).

Should exposure to explicit centerfold images lead to stronger effects than

exposure to nonexplicit centerfold images? The views expressed and actions taken by many lay people, policy makers, and academics would certainly suggest so. To begin, lay people in both the United States and similar countries express concern about sexual explicitness in general and nudity in the media in particular. According to Gunter (2002):

Public opinion about the need for tighter control of media sex has tended to be driven by

beliefs that such material can have harmful effects on consumers. This perception is

usually linked to more explicit representations of sex and has been especially strongly

focused in debates about the depictions of women. (p. 292)

To illustrate, in an analysis of more than one thousand U.S. Americans and British, 21% said frontal female nudity should never be shown on television (Gunter & Stipp, 1992).

In a 1985 Gallup pole of U.S. residents, 21% of respondents said laws should be implemented that ban magazines that show nudity (Gallup, 1985). Similarly, a study of

Floridians found that 25% supported a total ban on nude magazines and 56% supported policies limiting public display of nude magazines (Fisher, Cook, & Shirkey, 1994).

Policy makers have also expressed special concern about sexually explicit media.

According to Dixon and Linz (1997), attempts at sexual censorship via the legal system have “largely revolved around an intense concern for works which are high in sexual explicitness” (p. 219). The fact that governmental inquiries into sexual media nearly always focus on sexually explicit depictions is indicative of this uniquely focused concern (e.g., the 1970 Commission on Obscenity and Pornography in the United States, the 1986 Commission on Pornography in the United States, the Williams Committee in

Britain, the Fraser Committee in Canada).

Some academics also suggest that there is something about explicitness that

exacerbates effects. Specifically, several scholars interested in the effects of media sex have used the word “explicit” in their writings in a way that suggests that explicit content may be especially likely to affect audiences. Consider the following statements:

Years of research on other kinds of communication effects suggest…that the ubiquitous,

consistent, and increasingly explicit depictions of frequent and consequence-free sexual

behavior in all forms of mass media do affect Americans’ sexual beliefs and behaviors.

(Brown & Steele, 1995, p. 29)

Much of the positive change made in portrayals of women may be undermined by losses

in the increasingly explicit portrayal of woman as sex objects. (MacKay & Covell, 1997,

p. 575).

In total then, the voices of several parties interested in the effects of sexual media suggest that more explicit content should affect viewers more dramatically than less explicit content.

Not all are convinced of a positive association between explicitness and effects, however. Several authors have suggested that it may be the general portrayal, not explicitness that is important, especially in terms of exposure to objectifying media. For instance, when it comes to males becoming dissatisfied with their partner’s physical appearance from exposure to centerfold images, Zillmann and Bryant (1988) argue that

“any pinup – whether nude or in a bathing suit – will do…the degree of sexual explicitness is immaterial” (p. 451). Similarly, Linz et al. (1988) pointed out that effects from sexually explicit films may occur because of “the message about women as sex objects rather than the sexual explicitness of the films” (p. 760). Likewise, the 1986

Attorney General’s Commission on pornography acknowledged that female

objectification is “a significant theme in a broader range of materials not commonly taken to be sexually explicit enough to be pornographic” and admitted that “the extent of the effects of these degrading materials may not turn substantially on the amount of sexual explicitness” (p. 42). In sum, the “crucial element” determining effects from exposure to objectifying media may not be “the degree of sexual explicitness…but the broader messages conveyed in the material” (Linz & Malamuth, 1993, p. 451). For this reason,

Donnerstein and Smith (2001) and Malamuth and Impett (2001) have both called for research on sexual explicitness to determine its role (if any) in effects.

To conclude: Some assume that explicitness is an important ingredient in sexual media effects, some doubt whether it makes a unique contribution. The present study sides with the former group for several empirical and theoretical reasons.

First, although no prior sexual socialization study interested in cognition has isolated sexual explicitness systematically enough to make confident causal claims, there is research evidence suggesting the importance of sexual explicitness. Experimentally,

Linz et al. (2000) were interested in whether interpersonal communication effects on male patrons from exposure to live exotic dancing would vary depending on female dancers’ level of attire (nude vs. g-string/pasties). They found that dancers were perceived as sending more erotic and relational messages when they were nude. Although the context was not mediated and the outcomes were dissimilar to the types of outcomes studied in sexual socialization research, this study still demonstrates a causal association between lack of attire and communicative effects.

A few survey studies also suggest that sexual explicitness may contribute

uniquely to sexual socialization effects. Of most interest is a large scale study of Dutch adolescents (Peter & Valkenburg, 2007). In this study, a regression model with a number of sexual but not explicit and sexually explicit media predictors showed that only sexually explicit media exposure made a unique contribution to Dutch youths’ perceptions of females as sex objects. Several other correlational studies are relevant.

Taylor (2006, Study 1) pitted mainstream (e.g., Maxim) and sexually explicit (e.g.,

Playboy) magazines against one another in partial correlation analyses and found that only sexually explicit magazine exposure predicted unique variance in male college students’ permissive premarital sex attitudes. Strouse, Goodwin, and Roscoe (1994) found that teenage males who mostly watched R and X rated movies were more accepting of sexually objectifying behavior than males who mostly watched PG and PG-

13 rated movies. Last, although conducted with female undergraduates and not a sexual socialization study, Aubrey et al. (2009) carried out a strict degree of attire manipulation and found that depictions of models wearing less clothing were rated as more objectifying. Likewise, a study of National Organization for Women (NOW) members found that respondents believed that fully nude depictions of females were more objectifying than partially nude depictions (Cowan, 1992).

Explicitness effects can be predicted theoretically as well, if sexual explicitness is viewed as a particular type of message vividness. Messages are vivid to the extent that they “leave nothing to the imagination” and contain “descriptive details, especially exciting ones” (Microsoft Word Encarta Dictionary). Since sexually explicit portrayals are meant to sexually excite the viewer (Malamuth & Impett, 2001) and depict sex in

“obvious” and “unconcealed ways” (Kelley et al., 1989, p. 58), drawing a correlation between explicitness and vividness seems reasonable. The idea that vivid communications have a more pronounced effect on people’s beliefs than pallid communications has a long history in the persuasion literature (Taylor & Thompson,

1982). The basic hypothesis guiding persuasion research historically has been that vivid information is more memorable and thus more likely to be used during persuasive assessments than pallid information.

Although he did not elaborate, this logic may explain why pioneering media theoretician Leonard Berkowitz thought that more “vivid” and “dramatic” portrayals would strengthen media effects (Berkowitz & Rogers, 1986, p. 86). This line of thinking is also in tune with the “drench hypothesis” of Greenberg (1988). This hypothesis speculates that “vivid” media depictions have the most “impact” (p. 97) because “they stand out” and are “intense” (p. 98). Another media effects perspective that would seem to support the idea of a vividness effect is exemplification theory (Zillmann, 1999). In summarizing exemplification research, Zillmann (1999) concludes that message

“recipients give disproportional attention” to “vividly displayed events” (p. 70).

All told then, there are both empirical and conceptual reasons to believe that more explicit sexual images lead to more pronounced effects than less explicit images.

To summarize, the prior two sections of the paper reviewed research and theory regarding (a) the effect of female objectifying depictions – both explicit and nonexplicit

– on males’ beliefs, and (b) the possibility that explicit depictions have a more pronounced effect on males’ beliefs than nonexplicit depictions. The review of the

literature on the effects of objectifying depictions suggested that both nonexplicit (Kistler

& Lee, 2010; Rudman & Borgida, 1995; Ward, 2002; Ward et al., 2005; Ward &

Friedman, 2006; Zurbriggen & Morgan, 2006) and explicit (Braun-Courville & Rojas,

2009; Lo & Wei, 2005; Peter & Valkenburg, 2008, 2009a, 2009b; McKenzie-Mohr &

Zanna, 1990; Zillmann & Bryant, 1988) objectifying depictions likely affect males’ beliefs. The review of the literature related to sexual explicitness suggested that explicit objectifying depictions may have a more pronounced effects on males’ beliefs than nonexplicit objectifying depictions (Aubrey et al., 2009; Linz et al., 2000; Peter &

Valkenburg, 2007; Taylor, 2006).

To conclude, there are both empirical and theoretical reasons to believe that (a) objectifying depictions of females, whether explicit or not, affect males’ beliefs, but (b) the effects of explicit images are more pronounced. In the context of the present study, this means that males exposed to nonexplicit female centerfold images should express stronger centerfold syndrome beliefs than males not exposed to such images, but that males exposed to explicit images should express even stronger adherence to centerfold syndrome beliefs than males exposed to nonexplicit images. In other words, the present study expects a main effect of condition for each centerfold syndrome belief that breaks down as follows: explicit > nonexplicit > control. Stated formally:

H1a: Males exposed to explicit female centerfold images will have higher voyeurism scores immediately after exposure than males exposed to nonexplicit female centerfold images, and males exposed to nonexplicit female centerfold images will have higher voyeurism scores immediately after exposure than males who are not exposed to female centerfold images.

H1b: Males exposed to explicit female centerfold images will have higher sexual reductionism scores immediately after exposure than males exposed to nonexplicit female centerfold images, and males exposed to nonexplicit female centerfold images will have higher sexual reductionism scores immediately after exposure than males who are not exposed to female centerfold images. H1c: Males exposed to explicit female centerfold images will have higher masculinity validation scores immediately after exposure than males exposed to nonexplicit female centerfold images, and males exposed to nonexplicit female centerfold images will have higher masculinity validation scores immediately after exposure than males who are not exposed to female centerfold images. H1d: Males exposed to explicit female centerfold images will have higher trophyism scores immediately after exposure than males exposed to nonexplicit female centerfold images, and males exposed to nonexplicit female centerfold images will have higher trophyism scores immediately after exposure than males who are not exposed to female centerfold images. H1e: Males exposed to explicit female centerfold images will have higher nonrelational sex scores immediately after exposure than males exposed to nonexplicit female centerfold images, and males exposed to nonexplicit female centerfold images will have higher nonrelational sex scores immediately after exposure than males who are not exposed to female centerfold images. Past Exposure

In addition to sexual explicitness, past exposure to objectifying content may moderate the effects of recent exposure to centerfold images on males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs. Specifically, the impact of recent exposure to objectifying depictions may depend on past exposure to similar content. While males who frequently view objectifying media may be more likely in general than males who less frequently view objectifying media to adhere to centerfold syndrome beliefs, the impact of recent exposure to objectifying content on very frequent viewers may be small. On the other hand, males who less frequently view objectifying content may be more dramatically affected by recent exposure. The potential importance of past exposure to objectifying content in determining the effects of recent exposure to objectifying content is suggested

by the psychological literature on priming, a literature that media effects scholars have increasingly turned to for theoretical insight (Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2009).

Priming refers to the process through which exposure to an external stimulus activates existing knowledge in memory (Bushman & Huesmann, 2006). The increased accessibility of this knowledge then increases the likelihood it will be utilized in applicable situations (Higgins & Brendl, 1995). To put it another way, accessibility is the cognitive link between exposure to an external stimulus and the increased probability that the themes perceived in the stimulus will be utilized. But the perceived applicability of the activated knowledge is also important (Higgins, 1996; Wright, Donnerstein, and

Malamuth, 2011). Although accessibility and utilization are positively correlated, individuals with equally high levels of accessibility for particular ideas will vary in their application of those ideas depending on differences in their perceptions of the ideas’ applicability (Higgins & Brendl, 1995). To rephrase in terms of the present study, a priming perspective would predict a positive association between exposure to centerfold images and males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs, but would also expect variability in exposed males’ level of adherence to the beliefs comprising the centerfold syndrome due to disparate applicability perceptions.

Wright et al. (2011) have argued that cognitively oriented media effects theories tend to explain either how beliefs are acquired from the media or how beliefs that are already acquired are activated by media exposure. Theories of acquisition fall under the general rubric of “social learning” (Malamuth & Impett, 2001); theories of activation fall under the general rubric of “priming” (Donnerstein & Smith, 2001). The present study

explores the effects of centerfold images on young adult males. Because males of this age have generally been exposed to these types of images many times before, Wyer and his colleagues maintain that the effect of additional exposures should be the reactivation of previously learned beliefs rather than the acquisition of new beliefs (Wyer et al., 1985).

Thus, priming is an appropriate theoretical paradigm for the present study.

Most psychologists rely on network models of memory to explain priming

(Anderson, 1983; Bargh, 1984; Higgins, 1996; Higgins & King, 1981). In network models of memory, the mind is conceptualized as a web of interconnected constructs contained in “nodes.” Node to node links are referred to as “associative pathways.” Node connections are strongest when nodes are conceptually related, when nodes are activated together frequently, and when nodes have many linkages between them. Nodes are inactive in memory unless they are sufficiently stimulated. To put it another way, nodes are quiescent until a stimulus fills them with enough energy to wake them from their dormant state. When a node is activated, other nodes connected to the activated node become more likely to “fire” or activate as well. The process by which nodes contiguous to nodes that have been fired themselves become excited and more likely to fire is referred to as “spreading activation.” Models of priming in network memory posit that primed constructs become dormant shortly after being activated. However, some constructs are primed so often that they become “chronically accessible.”

All models of priming using a network memory approach have several similarities. For instance, they all assume that priming increases node excitation, that nodes must reach a minimum level of excitation before they are activated, and that nodes

may be kept active through frequent priming (Higgins et al., 1985). These “excitation transmission models” of priming can vary along several dimensions, however (Higgins et al., 1985, p. 60). For instance, while all excitation transmission models assume that nodes have the potential to excite and activate, they can differ in the assumptions they make about the excitation and activation process. Two views predominate.

First, a model might assume that excitation varies up to the point of activation only. From this perspective, nodes vary in their degree of pre-activation excitation, but once the minimum excitation level necessary for activation is surpassed, node excitation is constant. This perspective is known as the “binary” approach to activation because nodes are either inactive (and inaccessible) or active (and accessible). This approach is adopted by the synapse model of priming (Higgins et al., 1985). Alternatively, models may assume that excitation (and thus accessibility) is fully continuous. This approach agrees that nodes are inactive until some level of pre-activation excitation is surpassed, but argues that nodes may continue to excite even after they are activated. From this perspective, nodes reach the level of accessibility identified by binary approaches just after being activated. If they continue to excite, however, they will reach even higher levels of accessibility. This approach is adopted by the cell assembly model of priming

(Higgins et al., 1985).

Bargh et al. (1986) identified a way to compare these two models. These researchers were interested in whether node excitation due to past priming combines additively with excitation from recent priming. The synapse model would predict no such effect, since activation is binary in this model and chronically excited nodes are already

activated. On the other hand, the cell assembly model would predict that chronically activated cells can become even more excited and accessible through additional stimulation. Bargh et al. (1986) adopted the cell assembly approach. Specifically, they argued that excitation from chronic priming yields only a “baseline of construct activation,” that “there is a continuum of construct activation,” (p. 871) and that recent priming “results in a further increase above this baseline level” (p. 876).

In accordance with their hypothesis, they found that priming plus chronicity led to more pronounced effects on interpretation of ambiguous stimuli than priming or chronicity alone. In other words, their findings supported the idea that there is a “joint influence of long and short term sources of accessibility” (p. 869), a finding that can be explained by the cell assembly but not the synapse model. Preliminary support for the cell assembly perspective that accessibility is fully continuous can be found in the media effects realm as well. Specifically, a mini meta-analysis of eight media violence studies found that persons with trait aggressiveness (i.e., people who have chronically accessible aggressive cognitions) become even more aggressive following exposure to violent stimuli (Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2007).

Given the findings of Bargh et al. (1986) and Roskos-Ewoldsen et al. (2007), the cell assembly approach to activation is adopted by the present study, with one caveat. It stands to reason that the “continuum of construct activation” mentioned by Bargh et al.

(1986, p. 871) does not extend ad infinitum. At some point, the accessibility of a construct must become so pronounced that additional stimulation has only a minor effect.

In other words, the return on accessibility from recent exposure to a particular concept for

an individual who has previously been exposed to the concept should become less pronounced at higher levels of prior exposure. Consequently, the present study proposes that the effect of recent exposure to centerfold images on males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs will become less pronounced at higher levels of past exposure to objectifying content. Males who frequently view objectifying content will be more likely, in general, than males who less frequently view objectifying content to adhere to centerfold syndrome beliefs. But recent exposure to objectifying content should affect infrequent viewers of objectifying depictions more than frequent viewers of objectifying depictions.

Stated formally:

H2a: The effect of exposure to female centerfold images on males’ voyeurism scores will be contingent upon past exposure to objectifying media, such that males who less frequently view objectifying media will be more affected than males who frequently view objectifying media. H2b: The effect of exposure to female centerfold images on males’ sexual reductionism scores will be contingent upon past exposure to objectifying media, such that males who less frequently view objectifying media will be more affected than males who frequently view objectifying media. H2c: The effect of exposure to female centerfold images on males’ masculinity validation scores will be contingent upon past exposure to objectifying media, such that males who less frequently view objectifying media will be more affected than males who frequently view objectifying media. H2d: The effect of exposure to female centerfold images on males’ trophyism scores will be contingent upon past exposure to objectifying media, such that males who less frequently view objectifying media will be more affected than males who frequently view objectifying media. H2e: The effect of exposure to female centerfold images on males’ nonrelational sex scores will be contingent upon past exposure to objectifying media, such that males who less frequently view objectifying media will be more affected than males who frequently view objectifying media.

Duration of Effects

The effects of exposure to sexually objectifying depictions may also depend on recency of exposure, or the amount of time between exposure to objectifying media and a subsequent judgment. To inform the question of whether sexual media effects persist over time, it is informative to again turn to priming theory.

Models of priming in network memory posit that primed constructs become dormant shortly after being activated. Although they subscribe to the excitation transmission principles underlying network models of priming, Roskos-Ewoldsen and colleagues have questioned whether a simple network model of memory can adequately explain the types of priming events studied by media scholars (Roskos-Ewoldsen et al.,

2002; Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2009). They have suggested that a mental models approach to priming may be more appropriate. Mental models are mental representations of situations, events, or objects (Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2009). Network models stress semantic knowledge. Mental models contain both episodic and semantic information.

Thus, mental models may be thought of as a merger of semantic knowledge with episodic knowledge (vanDijk, 1998). In this way, “mental models are hypothesized to exist alongside and coupled with the semantic networks that are hypothesized by network models of memory” (Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2002, p. 111). A mental models approach to understanding media priming is gaining momentum. For example, Mastro, Behm-

Morawitz, and Ortiz (2007) have used a mental models conceptualization to explain the relationship between exposure to images of Latinos on television and real world perceptions of Latinos in the United States. According to Mastro et al. (2007):

Once constructed, mental models can be used to formulate judgments and guide decision

making when relevant and salient (Radvansky & Zacks, 1997). Thus, a mental model

impacts on perceptions when available in working memory (Radavansky & Zacks, 1997;

Zwann & Radvansky, 1998), such as when activated through a media prime. (p. 351)

A mental models approach changes expectations about what is being primed more than expectations about how priming works. As stated at the outset of this subsection, a mental models approach to priming still relies on excitation transmission principles common to network priming perspectives. For instance, like network priming approaches, a mental models approach sees the knowledge units comprising mental models as akin to “nodes that can be primed” (Carpentier et al., 2008, p. 201) and stresses that priming should lead to increased node excitation (Wyer & Radvansky, 1999).

Mechanically, then, a mental models approach to priming is the same as a network approach to priming. There is at least one area, however, where adopting a mental models approach dramatically changes expectations about the priming process: duration of effects.

Studies of media priming often find that priming effects persist for periods of time that dwarf the chronological persistence of priming effects in network memory research in psychology. Effects generated in cognitive psychology sometimes fade within milliseconds (Neely, 1977). Effects generated in social psychological priming studies typically persist no longer than 20 minutes (Higgins, 1996). On the other hand, some media studies that can be interpreted in terms of priming have found effects 24 hours or more after exposure (Iyengar & Kinder, 1987; Linz et al., 1988; Zillmann & Bryant,

1988). The persistence of media effects makes sense, if a mental models perspective on

media priming is adopted (Carpentier et al., 2008; Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2009).

Network memory priming is posited to activate simple, abstract constructs such as “rash,”

“kind,” and “shy” (Bargh et al., 1986; Higgins et al., 1985). These types of constructs fade quickly after priming because they are simple enough to be encapsulated in only a few nodes and can be understood without activating personal experiences. On the other hand, the types of media exposure typically studied by effects scholars (e.g., exposure to television news, violent movies, sexual magazines) is thought to result in the activation of complex, personally relevant, multipart mental models that are more persistent in memory. For instance, the cognitions comprising the centerfold syndrome are multifaceted and the ideas contained in these mental structures relate to two of the most salient areas of many males’ lives: sex and relationships. Because of their complexity

(Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2009) and “because we can easily visualize and contextualize mental models, the activation of a mental model should result in longer lasting effects”

(Carpentier et al., 2008, p. 201).

Because Roskos-Ewoldsen and colleagues do not specify how long primed mental models remain accessible and because research that has manipulated prime recency is rare (Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2007), it is difficult to estimate the precise time course of mental models priming. Referencing prior research is made even more complicated by the fact that factors such as frequency and duration of exposure impact the chronological trajectory of priming effects (Higgins et al., 1985). Media sex studies that have found longer term effects have exposed participants to hours of content, sometimes over a period of several days or weeks. For example, Zillmann and Bryant (1988) found

cognitive effects from exposure to adult videos a week after last exposure, but participants in this study were exposed to an hour of adult content a week for six weeks.

Similarly, Linz et al. (1988) exposed participants to films with sexual content from various genres over several days and Eyal and Kunkel (2008) exposed participants to two hours of sexual television.

Participants in the present study will be exposed to priming stimuli for just a handful of minutes on only one occasion. Fortunately, a recent study of media violence priming that manipulated recency of exposure and exposed participants to a media stimulus of short duration can be used to inform the question of time span in the present inquiry. Riddle (2010) was interested in the effects of television violence on viewers’ perceptions in a number of areas, including their perceptions of their own personal susceptibility to crime. Participants were exposed to 20 minutes of violent television.

Dependent measures were administered immediately after exposure or at 48 hours after exposure. No differences were found between perceptions of personal susceptibility to crime immediately after exposure and 48 hours after exposure. Although a no-viewing control group was not available for comparison, prior media violence research suggests that viewing 20 minutes of violent television should have lead to a priming effect

(Bushman & Huesmann, 2006). That null differences in perceptions of personal susceptibility to crime were found between the immediately exposed group and the 48 hour delay group suggests the possibility that brief media exposure can lead to effects for up to 48 hours. The present study thus asks:

RQ1a: Will the effect of exposure to centerfold images on males’ voyeurism scores remain 48 hours after exposure? RQ1b: Will the effect of exposure to centerfold images on males’ sexual reductionism scores remain 48 hours after exposure? RQ1c: Will the effect of exposure to centerfold images on males’ masculinity validation scores remain 48 hours after exposure? RQ1d: Will the effect of exposure to centerfold images on males’ trophyism scores remain 48 hours after exposure? RQ1e: Will the effect of exposure to centerfold images on males’ nonrelational sex scores remain 48 hours after exposure?

Summary

The present study investigates whether experimentally exposing young adult males to centerfold images of females affects males’ sexual beliefs. The study’s primary contributions to knowledge are as follows. First, it expands the knowledge base regarding female-objectifying media’s effect on males’ sexual beliefs. Heretofore most studies have focused on a small subset of outcomes related to sexual aggression. This study explores a diversity of beliefs that clinical psychologist Gary Brooks (1995) outlines in his

“centerfold syndrome” theory. Second, it explores whether sexual explicitness moderates the effect of exposure to objectifying media. Third, it investigates whether past exposure to objectifying depictions moderates the effect of recent exposure to objectifying depictions. Fourth, it explores whether the effect of recent exposure to centerfold images on males’ sexual beliefs persists over time. Each of these areas of investigation address important topics regarding the effects of sexual media content, and thus this dissertation

should collectively yield a significant contribution to knowledge.

III. METHOD

Overview The present study employed an experimental design. Participants were randomly assigned to either a control group with no female centerfold stimuli, a “nonexplicit” group featuring female centerfolds who did not expose their nipples or genitalia, or an

“explicit” group featuring the same female centerfolds in the same surroundings attired in the same manner who were now exposing either their nipples, genitalia, or both. Past exposure to objectifying content was assessed by asking participants how frequently they viewed pornography in the prior year. The dependent variables were Brooks’ (1995,

1997) five centerfold syndrome beliefs: voyeurism, sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, trophyism, and nonrelational sex. Dependent measures were administered to the same participants immediately after exposure and approximately 48 hours after exposure.

Participants were made aware of the study through visits to communication courses at a large southwestern university; they were enticed to participate through the offering of course extra credit. The study was described as an investigation into male college students’ opinions about sports, women, and sex. Recruitment materials notified participants that they may see pictures of female centerfold models such as those that appear in Maxim and Playboy if they participated. Participants signed up for a laboratory session at their convenience. After consenting to participate they were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions. The control condition featured media stimuli related only to athletics. The two experimental conditions featured sports-related media stimuli but

also featured centerfold images of varying explicitness. The control condition contained all of the self-report items included in the experimental conditions.

Experimental stimuli and measures were administered via MediaLab. Participants were reminded before they began their laboratory session that they would need to fill out an additional brief online survey approximately 48 hours after their laboratory session terminated. Approximately 44 hours after their lab session, participants were emailed a link to an online survey. Participants had until the 52 hour mark to complete the online survey. Participants were debriefed after they finished this final survey.

Participants

The present study is interested in how exposure to centerfold images of females affects a set of sexual beliefs among young adult males that Brooks (1995) calls the

“centerfold syndrome.” A convenience sample of heterosexual college males aged 18-29 was obtained to achieve this end. The sample was limited to heterosexuals because

Brooks (1995) explicitly states that his theory applies only to this sexual subgroup. The sample was limited to males aged 18-29 because of legal issues that could have arisen from showing 17 year-old or younger youth sexually explicit materials and because 29 is the age cutoff that prominent developmental psychologists identify for young or

“emerging” adulthood (Arnett, 2004; Munsey, 2006).

The targeted sample size for the present study was N = 120 (n = 40 per condition).

Recruitment efforts resulted in 142 initial participants. One participant had to be dropped because he was 31 years old. Four additional participants had to be dropped because of

their homosexual orientation. Four additional participants participated in the laboratory session but did not complete the follow up online survey in the allotted time (97% retention rate).

Thus, the study’s final sample consisted of 133 heterosexual males between the ages of 18-29 who participated in both the laboratory session and follow up online survey

(control n = 44; nonexplicit n = 46, explicit n = 43). Participants’ mean age was 20.91

(SD = 1.84). The majority of participants (76.70%) identified as White, 8.30% as Asian,

7.50% as Hispanic, 3.80% as Black, 3% as Middle Eastern, and 0.80% as some other ethnicity. Most participants identified as Christian (57.90%) or Jewish (16.50%), 3.80% as Islamic, 0.80% as Buddhist, 1.50% as some other religion, and 19.50% as not belonging to any religion. Age (F = 0.87, p = .42), White/Nonwhite (χ2 = 5.26, p = .07), and Judeo-Christian/non-Judeo-Christian (χ2 = 1.46, p = .48) differences were not significant across conditions.

Materials

Thirty images of 15 female models were culled from Playboy.com to compose the centerfold stimuli (see Appendix A). Centerfold images are still-shot photographs of scantily clad or nude females who are sexually posed but not sexually involved. One

“explicit” and one “nonexplicit” photo was downloaded for each model. United States’ culture draws a line between “explicit” and “nonexplicit” sexual media (Dixon & Linz,

1997; Gallup, 1985; Krassas et al., 2003; Taylor, 2005a; Zillmann & Bryant, 1988). In the realm of centerfold images, the line seems to be drawn around the exposure of

females’ nipples and labia majora. Specifically, centerfold images that cover (at least with a thin veneer of clothing) females’ nipples and genitalia from the labia majora inward are not considered sexually explicit, images that expose females’ nipples or genitalia from the labia majora inward are considered sexually explicit (Krassas et al.,

2003). This is why retailers such as Osco, Savon, Albertsons, Lucky, Shoppers, Shop’n

Save, ACME, CUB, Barnes and Nobles, Borders, and CVS do not restrict the sale of magazines such as Maxim (which is careful to never violate this standard of explicitness) but do restrict the sale of magazines such as Playboy (which does, in some photos, cross this standard of explicitness) (Blanch, Borders representative, personal communication,

September 30, 2010; Carrie, Barnes and Nobles representative, personal communication,

September 30, 2010; Jesse, CVS representative, personal communication, July 13, 2010;

Siemienas, National Media Manager for SUPERVALU INC, personal communication,

July 15, 2010).

Playboy.com has a “cyber girl” section that proved valuable in finding images for the present study. As an enticement to subscribe to the site and obtain access to all of the available photos for each cyber girl, a two photo sequence of each model is provided. The first photo is generally nonexplicit, by the standards described above. A typical first photo features a lingerie clad model poised to remove her panties or bra. The second photo is explicit by the standards described above. A typical second photo shows the same model, in the same location, moments later having just released her breasts from their brazier or lowered her panties enough to expose her vagina. In sum, the sequence of photos in the cyber girl section of the site provided a naturally-occurring stimuli selection

pool for the present study. Numerous photo sequences were scoured until 15 sequences were found wherein (a) photo one unambiguously met the nonexplicit criteria and photo two the explicit criteria and (b) where differences between the two photos other than the amount of the female body revealed were difficult to decipher. Fifteen images were selected so as to maximize the duration and frequency of participants’ exposure to these images while at the same time maintaining an image count in alignment with prior research.

A between-group pilot test involving 24 males who were not involved in the main study was carried out to assess similarities and differences between these images.

Specifically, the nonexplicit images (n = 12) were compared to the explicit images (n =

12) on indices of attractiveness (1 = very unattractive; 5 = very attractive) and explicitness (1 = no nudity shown; 2 = nudity shown). T-tests revealed literally no mean difference between these images on an index of models’ attractiveness (M nonexplicit images= 4.02, SD = 0.50; M explicit images = 4.02; SD = .80), but did indicate that the nonexplicit images were rated as less explicit (M = 1.14; SD = 0.25) than the explicit images (M = 2.00 ; SD = 0.00) (t = -11.82, p < .001).

Several prior studies (Johnson et al., 2007; Wyer et al., 1985) have presented participants in experimental conditions with additional images so as to obfuscate the study’s true purpose. The present study adopted this practice. The study was presented to participants as an investigation into male college students’ opinions about sports, women, and sex. Following this cover story, twenty-five images of male athletes engaged in five different sports were obtained through Google’s image search procedure. Five images

featured golfers, five basketball players, five hockey players, five football players, and five baseball players. Control participants were exposed to all 25 images. Experimental participants were exposed to two images selected at random from each category. Thus, all participants were exposed to 25 images. This approach is ecologically valid because the pairing of objectified females and sports is part and parcel of many male-targeted media

(e.g., Sports Illustrated, SportsbyBrooks.com).

Procedure

Upon arrival at the lab participants were greeted, thanked for their time, and given a brief verbal overview of what the lab session would consist of. Specifically, participants were told that the lab session should take no more than an hour, that in the lab session they would be asked questions about sports and other topics, and that they would need to complete a follow up online survey in approximately 48 hours. Each participant was then assigned to a computer. To connect the lab data with the online survey, participants were assigned an identification number consisting of the first letter of their last name and the last four digits of their cellular phone number. Participants were reminded after they completed their lab session that they would need to fill out an additional online survey in approximately 48 hours.

Participants were run in groups as large as three. Participants were placed in a horizontal row approximately five feet apart. Each participant’s computer was shielded by (a) the horizontal positioning procedure and (b) file folders attached to each participant’s computer screen. This insured that others in the room could not observe the

material displayed on their peers’ computer screen.

MediaLab was used to administer the experiment. MediaLab requires that the investigator preset the condition of the next participant. Participants were assigned to conditions at random before beginning their MediaLab session. Randomization was accomplished by first creating assignment slots in an Excel spreadsheet. Then, the numbers 1, 2, and 3 (representing the three conditions) were written on equivalent pieces of paper and drawn, one by one, from a hat and assigned to each slot. This process was continued in threes until each slot had been assigned a condition.

Each condition began with an overview of the experiment and a note thanking the participant for his time. The overview page informed the participant that in this particular study he would see images and be asked questions about a number of social issues. As stated in prior sections, the study had already been described to participants during recruitment as an investigation into male college students’ opinions about sports, women, and sex. Second, each condition asked the participant to enter his ID number, administered demographic questions, an item assessing past exposure to objectifying media, control measures, and five sports-related questions. Third, the control condition displayed 25 images of male athletes (5 basketball images, 5 golf images, 5 football images, 5 baseball images, and 5 hockey images) for no longer than 60 seconds each. The nonexplicit condition displayed 15 images of nonexplicit centerfolds and 10 images of male athletes (two images from each sport selected at random from the pool of five images from each sporting genre) for no longer than 60 seconds each. The explicit condition displayed 15 images of explicit centerfolds and the same 10 images of male

athletes that were displayed in the nonexplicit condition for no longer than 60 seconds each. Images in the control condition were thematically grouped and counterbalanced within groupings. Athletic images appeared first, centerfold images second in the experimental conditions. Images were counterbalanced within groups in the experimental conditions. In an effort to give the impression that the presentation of these images was a unique portion of the experiment as opposed to a priming task, participants were asked to answer a multiple choice question about each image (Aubrey & Taylor, 2009; Johnson et al., 2007; Lanis & Covell, 1995; MacKay & Covell, 1997). Participants in the experimental conditions were asked to answer the same questions about each image.

Fourth, the five dependent measures were administered. A sports-related question was asked in between each set of dependent measure items. The dependent measures were counterbalanced within groups.

Finally, participants were reminded that they would need to fill out an additional online survey approximately 48 hours after their laboratory session terminated. At the 44 hour mark each participant was emailed a link to the online survey and a reminder that they had until the 52 hour mark to complete the survey. The online survey presented the five dependent measures (counterbalanced within groups) intermingled with five sports related questions and then a battery of questions that were unrelated to the present project. Participants were debriefed after they had finished this final survey.

Measures

The study’s measures are presented below. First, the dependent measures are outlined. Descriptive statistics for and correlations between these measures are presented in Table 1. Second, the operationalization of past exposure to objectifying media is delineated. Third, potential control variables are described. See Appendix B for a complete listing of the study’s measures.

Dependent variables

The present study assessed whether experimentally exposing male college students to centerfold images of females leads to heightened agreement with statements indicative of the beliefs comprising what clinical psychologist Gary Brooks (1995, 1997) calls the “centerfold syndrome.” The centerfold syndrome afflicts a male when he (1) believes that voyeurism is natural and inevitable; (2) engages in sexual reductionism (i.e., thinks of females in terms of their bodies and evaluates them in terms of their physical sexual appeal); (3) believes that his masculinity can be validated through sexual skill and conquest; (4) thinks of attractive females as trophies that can be used to gain social status; and (5) ascribes to a recreational, nonrelational sexual philosophy. These cognitions can be abbreviated to the following monikers: voyeurism, sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, trophyism, and nonrelational sex. No prior study has set out to test the centerfold syndrome quantitatively and Brooks is not a quantitative researcher. As a result, no preexisting centerfold syndrome measures exist. As the literature review indicated, however, studies have assessed beliefs similar to those identified by Brooks.

To create dependent measures this literature was perused, relevant items were noted, and

novel items were created when it was necessary to do so. Response options for all items range from (1) disagree strongly to (7) agree strongly. Higher scores equate to stronger adherence to these beliefs.

Voyeurism. Four items adapted from Kistler and Lee (2010) and Ward (2002) and one novel item were utilized to measure participants’ voyeuristic beliefs (T1 α = .84; T2

α = .80). Example items are “Men are ‘hardwired’ to want to look at women’s bodies” and “It is okay to admire women’s bodies as they pass by on the street.”

Sexual reductionism. Four items adapted from Kalyanaraman, Steele, and Sundar

(2000), Ward (2002), Ward et al. (2006), Zurbriggen and Morgan (2006) and one novel item were used to index sexual reductionism (T1 α = .82; T2 α = .82). Example items are

“If cosmetic surgery would make my partner more attractive I would strongly encourage it” and “There is nothing wrong with men being primarily interested in a woman’s body.”

Masculinity validation. Two items adapted from Ward et al. (2005) and

Zurbriggen and Morgan (2006) and three novel items were utilized to measure participants’ beliefs about masculinity validation (T1 α = .79; T2 α = .82). Example items are “Men love a challenge and often choose to pursue the seemingly unattainable woman” and “There is nothing more validating than getting an attractive woman to have sex.”

Trophyism. Two items adapted from Ward (2002) and three novel items were employed to measure Brooks’ trophyism concept (T1 α = .76; T2 α = .80). Example items are “Being with an attractive woman gives a man prestige” and “Men who can get any woman into bed demand respect.”

Nonrelational sex. Hendrick, Hendrick, and Reich’s (2006) ten item brief sexual attitudes scale was used to assess participants’ views on nonrelational sex (T1 α = .92; T2

α = .92). Example items are “It’s possible to enjoy sex with a person and not like him/her,” “One night stands are sometimes very enjoyable,” and “I don’t need to be committed to a person to have sex with them.”

Independent variable

Past exposure. Past exposure to objectifying content was assessed by asking participants how frequently they viewed pornography in the prior year. Following Wright et al. (2011), pornography was defined for participants as “content appearing in any mediated venue that depicts female nudity and/or graphic sexual acts involving females such as intercourse or oral sex.” Response options were: never (1), once or twice (2), once every few months (3), about once a month (4), several times a month (5), once a week (6), several times a week (7), once a day (8), or several times a day (9) (M = 5.32;

SD = 1.92). These response options were derived from recent studies of youth pornography exposure (Braun-Courville & Rojas, 2009; Brown & L’Engle, 2009; Fox,

2006; Lo & Wei, 2005; Peter & Valkenburg, 2006). The retrospective interval of a year was derived from Taylor (2006), Brown and L’Engle (2009), and Lo and Wei (2005). All of these studies found that asking participants about their pornography exposure over the last year predicted their current sexual beliefs.

Participants were asked about exposure to pornography only for two reasons.

First, female objectification is a relative constant in pornography (Malamuth, 1996;

Malamuth & Billings, 1986). Objectification in mainstream genres, although prevalent, is

less constant. Second, viewing pornography is highly correlated with viewing objectifying mainstream content among college males (Taylor, 2006). Thus, when a measure indexes college males’ exposure to pornographic content, it simultaneously indexes their exposure to mainstream objectifying content. In sum, operationalizing past exposure to objectifying media in terms of pornography exposure had the advantage of reducing measurement error without compromising construct validity.

Control variables

Although Brooks makes clear that no heterosexual male is immune from the socializing impact of female objectifying media, he does identify two factors that have the potential to redress the centerfold syndrome: religiosity and being in a caring, committed romantic relationship with a female. Many religions discourage elements of the centerfold syndrome (e.g., voyeurism, Barbee, 1997; a nonrelational approach to sex,

Eyal & Kunkel, 2008). Additionally, an intimate connection with a female partner may help males see through the myth that females are sexual objects (Brooks, 1995).

Similarly, Barbee (1997) argues that males who have a secure attachment relationship with their primary caregiver as a child may be less susceptible to the centerfold syndrome as an adult. Many elements of the centerfold syndrome parallel an insecure approach to relationships and childhood attachment style predicts adults’ approaches to romantic relating. Accordingly, the present study measured religiosity, relationship status, and childhood attachment as potential control variables. If scores on these variables differ significantly between conditions they will be controlled statistically when conducting hypothesis tests.

Religiosity. Religiosity was measured using three items adapted from Eyal and

Kunkel’s (2008) religiosity index (α = .91). Example items include “Being religious is important to me” and “I often attend religious services.” Response options for this measure ranged from (1) disagree strongly to (7) agree strongly. Higher scores equate to more religiosity (M = 3.56; SD = 1.79).

Relationship status. Whether or not participants are in a caring, committed romantic relationship was assessed with three items created for the present study (α =

.94). Example items include “I am in an exclusive romantic relationship with a female partner that I care for very much” and “I am in a committed romantic relationship with a female partner that I have strong feelings for.” Response options for these items ranged from (1) disagree strongly to (7) agree strongly. Higher scores equate to being in a more caring and committed romantic relationship

(M = 3.72 ; SD = 2.23).

Childhood attachment. Three items from Granqvist’s (2002) childhood attachment history measure were used to assess participants’ childhood relationship with their primary caregiver (α = .72). Example items are “My primary caregiver was generally warm” and “My primary caregiver was generally sympathetic.” Response options for this measure ranged from (1) disagree strongly to (7) agree strongly. Higher scores equate to a closer attachment relationship (M = 6.31; SD = 0.97).

IV. RESULTS

Overview

Data analyses for the present study proceeded as follows. First, three one-way

ANOVAs were conducted to see if the potential confounds – religiosity, relationship status, and childhood attachment – differed by condition.

Second, five one-way ANOVAs were carried out to test H1a-e. Collectively, H1 predicted a main effect of exposure such that (a) males exposed to either explicit or nonexplicit centerfold images would adhere more strongly to the beliefs comprising the centerfold syndrome immediately following exposure than males who were not exposed to centerfold imagery, but (b) males exposed to explicit centerfold images would express even stronger adherence to the beliefs comprising the centerfold syndrome immediately following exposure than males who saw nonexplicit images.

Third, five multiple regression analyses were carried out to test H2a-e, which collectively predicted that the immediate effect of recent exposure to centerfold images on males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs would be strongest for males with lower levels of past exposure to objectifying media. The continuous nature of the past exposure variable necessitated a shift from an ANOVA approach to a regression approach to test H2a-e.

Finally, five additional regression analyses were carried out to provide answers to RQ1a- e, which collectively asked whether the effects of exposure to centerfold images on males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs would persist for approximately 48 hours. Regression analyses were conducted to answer RQ1a-e because tests carried out to explore H2a-e

indicated that past exposure to objectifying media did indeed moderate the effects of recent exposure to centerfold images.

Potential Confounds

Brooks (1995) suggests that being religious or in a caring, committed romantic relationship may immunize males from the centerfold syndrome. Barbee (1997) speculates that having a secure attachment relationship with one’s childhood caregiver may have a similar effect. It was important, therefore, to test for condition differences on these variables. If males differed on these variables in each condition before exposure, post-exposure differences might erroneously be attributed to viewing centerfold imagery.

One-way ANOVAs did not indicate significant condition differences for religiosity [F (2,

130) = 1.88, p = .16)], relationship status [F (2, 130) = 0.38, p = .69)], or childhood attachment [F (2, 130) = 0.12, p = .89)]. Randomization successfully leveled out differences on these variables between conditions.

Hypotheses 1a-e: Main Effects of Exposure

Hypotheses 1a-e predicted a main effect of condition that would break down accordingly for each of the five centerfold syndrome beliefs: explicit condition > nonexplicit condition > control condition. Table 2 presents the centerfold syndrome belief means and standard deviations for each condition immediately following exposure.

Figure 1 visually displays the voyeurism, sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, trophyism, and nonrelational sex means by condition immediately following exposure.

Although the means in the exposure conditions were universally higher than the means in the control condition and the means in the explicit condition were higher in four

out of five instances than the means in the nonexplicit condition, one-way ANOVAs carried out for each centerfold syndrome belief with condition as the independent variable did not obtain significance: voyeurism [F (2, 130) = 0.41, p = .67)], sexual reductionism [F (2,130) = 0.93, p = .40)], masculinity validation [F (2, 130) = 0.56, p =

.58)], trophyism [F (2, 130) = 0.40, p = .67)], and nonrelational sex [F (2, 130) = .73, p =

.49)].

H1a-e summary. Hypotheses 1a-e predicted an immediate main effect of condition such that males exposed to either explicit or nonexplicit female centerfold images would have stronger centerfold syndrome beliefs than males who were not exposed to female centerfold images, but males exposed to explicit female centerfold images would have stronger centerfold syndrome beliefs than males exposed to nonexplicit female centerfold images. One-way ANOVAs carried out for each centerfold syndrome belief with condition as the independent variable did not obtain significance.

Thus, no aspect of H1a-e was supported.

H2a-e: Moderating Role of Past Exposure

As the prior section outlined, the present study expected but did not observe an overall main effect of recent exposure to female centerfold images on males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs (H1a-e). The present study also predicted, however, that this main effect would be conditioned by males’ past exposure to objectifying media (H2a-e).To restate, H2a-e collectively proposed that the effect of recent exposure to female centerfold images on males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs would be contingent upon their past exposure to objectifying media, such that males who less frequently view

objectifying media would be more affected than males who frequently view objectifying media. Because H1a-e revealed non-significant differences between the explicit and nonexplicit groups, these groups were combined (0 = control group; 1 = exposure groups) to increase power when testing H2a-e. To test H2a-e, then, each T1 centerfold syndrome variable was regressed on condition, mean-centered past exposure, and their interaction term.

H2a, which predicted that past exposure to objectifying media would condition the effects of recent exposure to centerfold images on males’ voyeurism beliefs, was not supported (see Table 3). Past exposure was positively associated with males’ T1 voyeurism beliefs [B = 0.21, t (129) = 2.86, p < .01], but did not interact with condition

[B = -0.12, t (129) = -1.29, p = .20].

H2b, which predicted that past exposure to objectifying media would condition the effects of recent exposure to centerfold images on males’ sexual reductionism beliefs, was supported (see Table 4). Past exposure was positively and significantly associated with males’ T1 sexual reductionism beliefs [B = 0.33, t (129) = 3.61, p < .01] and interacted with condition [B = -0.36, t (129) = -3.10, p < .01]. As predicted, the effect of recent exposure to female centerfold images on males’ sexual reductionism beliefs was contingent upon past exposure to objectifying media, such that males who less frequently view objectifying media were more affected than males who frequently view objectifying media. The nature of this interaction is illustrated in Figure 2. Simple slope analyses suggest that recent, brief exposure to female centerfold images changes the sexual reductionism beliefs of only those who view pornography either never [B = 1.83, t (129)

= 3.34, p < .01], once or twice a year [B = 1.47, t (129) = 3.30, p < .01], once every few months [B = 1.11, t (129) = 3.16, p < .01], or about once a month [B = 0.75, t (129) =

2.72, p < .01]. The slope for males who view pornography several times a month was positive, but not reliable [B = 0.39, t (129) = 1.66, p = .10]. When past pornography viewing reached the once a week level, the slope became essentially horizontal [B =

0.02, t (129) = 0.10, p = .92]. These analyses demonstrate that even brief exposure to female centerfold images can cause males who are exposed to objectifying media less frequently to believe in sexually reductionistic ideas immediately following exposure as strongly as males who view objectifying media on a regular basis.

H2c, which predicted that past exposure to objectifying media would condition the effects of recent exposure to centerfold images on males’ masculinity validation beliefs, was supported (see Table 5). Past exposure was positively associated with males’

T1 masculinity validation beliefs [B = 0.26, t (129) = 2.81, p < .01] and interacted with condition [B = -0.27, t (129) = -2.25, p < .05]. As predicted, the effect of recent exposure to female centerfold images on males’ masculinity validation beliefs was contingent upon past exposure to objectifying media, such that males who less frequently view objectifying media were more affected than males who frequently view objectifying media. The nature of this interaction is illustrated in Figure 3. Simple slope analyses suggest that recent, brief exposure to female centerfold images changes the masculinity validation beliefs of only those who view pornography either never [B = 1.37, t (129) =

2.44, p < .05], once or twice a year [B = 1.10, t (129) = 2.42, p < .05], once every few months [B = 0.83, t (129) = 2.33, p < .05], or about once a month [B = 0.57, t (129) =

2.03, p < .05]. The slope for males who view pornography several times a month was positive, but not reliable [B = 0.30, t (129) = 1.23, p = .21]. When pornography viewing reached the once a week level, the slope became essentially horizontal [B = 0.03, t (129)

= 0.13, p = .90]. These analyses demonstrate that even brief exposure to female centerfold images can cause males who are exposed to objectifying media less frequently to believe in masculinity validation ideas immediately following exposure as strongly as males who view objectifying media on a regular basis.

H2d, which predicted that past exposure to objectifying media would condition the effects of recent exposure to centerfold images on males’ trophyism beliefs, was not supported (see Table 6). Past exposure was positively associated with males’ T1 trophyism beliefs [B = 0.18, t (129) = 2.22, p < .05], but did not interact with condition

[B = -0.08, t (129) = -0.72, p = .47].

H2e, which predicted that past exposure to objectifying media would condition the effects of recent exposure to centerfold images on males’ nonrelational sex beliefs, was supported (see Table 7). Past exposure was positively associated with males’ T1 nonrelational sex beliefs [B = 0.52, t (129) = 5.62, p < .01] and interacted with condition

[B = -0.40, t (129) = -3.37, p < .01]. As predicted, the effect of recent exposure to female centerfold images on males’ nonrelational sex beliefs was contingent upon past exposure to objectifying media, such that males who less frequently view objectifying media were more affected than males who frequently view objectifying media. The nature of this interaction is illustrated in Figure 4. Simple slope analyses suggest that recent, brief exposure to female centerfold images changes the nonrelational sex beliefs of only those

who view pornography either never [B = 1.93, t (129) = 3.47, p < .01], once or twice a year [B = 1.54, t (129) = 3.40, p < .01], once every few months [B = 1.14, t (129) = 3.19, p < .01], or about once a month [B = 0.74, t (129) = 2.66, p < .01]. The slope for males who view pornography several times a month was positive, but not reliable [B = 0.34, t

(129) = 1.48, p = .15]. When pornography viewing reached the once a week level, the slope became essentially horizontal [B = -0.06, t (129) = -0.23, p = .82]. These analyses demonstrate that even brief exposure to female centerfold images can cause males who are exposed to objectifying media less frequently to believe in nonrelational sex ideas immediately following exposure almost as strongly as males who view objectifying media on a regular basis.

H2a-e summary. To summarize, H2a-e collectively predicted that the effect of recent exposure to female centerfold images on males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs would depend on males’ past exposure to objectifying media, such that males who less frequently view objectifying media would be more affected by recent exposure to centerfold images than males who frequently view objectifying media. This supposition was not supported for voyeurism (H2a) and trophyism (H2d).

This supposition was supported, however, for sexual reductionism (H2b), masculinity validation (H2c), and nonrelational sex (H2e). Simple slope analyses for sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, and nonrelational sex showed that males who view objectifying media about once a month or less were affected by recent exposure to female centerfold images. Correspondingly, when these less frequent pornography viewers in the control and experimental groups are isolated and compared

(i.e., control group vs. nonexplicit/explicit groups combined), immediate main effects emerge for sexual reductionism (M control = 2.63; M exposure groups = 3.69) (t = -

2.46, p < .05), masculinity validation (M control = 2.89; M exposure groups = 3.88) (t = -

2.28, p < .05), and nonrelational sex (M control = 2.70; M exposure groups = 4.24) (t = -

3.35, p < .01).

In interpreting the significant interactions, it is important to emphasize that past exposure to objectifying media was positively correlated with sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, and nonrelational sex beliefs. Thus, these interactions do not suggest that males who frequently view objectifying content are unaffected by exposure to such messages. Rather, they suggest a saturation effect, such that the impact of additional brief exposures to objectifying content on males’ beliefs simply becomes less dramatic with more frequent exposures. It is also important to recognize that the results of the present study show that even brief exposure to female centerfold images can cause males who are exposed to objectifying media less frequently to hold sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, and nonrelational sex beliefs immediately following exposure as strongly or almost as strongly as males who view objectifying media on a regular basis.

RQ1a-e: Persistence of Effects Over Time

Research Questions 1a-e collectively asked if the immediate effect (T1) of exposure to centerfold images on males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs would persist 48 hours after exposure (T2). Analyses carried out to test H1a-e revealed no immediate main effect of exposure to female centerfold images on any of the centerfold syndrome beliefs.

Analyses carried out to test H2a-e, however, revealed an immediate recent exposure x

past exposure interaction effect for sexual reductionism (H2b), masculinity validation

(H2c), and nonrelational sex (H2e). These interactions suggest that recent, brief exposure to female centerfold images does immediately strengthen the sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, and nonrelational sex beliefs of males who view objectifying media about once a month or less.

The same regression approach employed to test for interaction effects at T1 (H2a- e) was used to test for the continuation of these effects at T2 (RQ1a-e). To review, the continuous nature of the past exposure variable necessitated a shift from the ANOVA approach used to test H1a-e to a regression approach for the testing of H2a-e. Because

H1a-e revealed non-significant differences between the explicit and nonexplicit groups, these groups were combined (0 = control group; 1 = exposure groups) to increase power when testing H2a-e. Although no main or moderated effects of exposure to female centerfold images were found for voyeurism and trophyism at T1, these beliefs were assessed at T2 because of the possibility of a delayed or “sleeper effect” of exposure

(Hovland & Weiss, 1951).

RQ1a asked if the immediate effect of exposure to centerfold images on males’ voyeurism beliefs would remain 48 hours after exposure. Recall again that the analyses carried out to test Hypotheses 1 and 2 showed no main or moderated T1 effect of exposure to centerfold images on males’ voyeurism beliefs. Analyses of the main and moderated effects of condition on T2 voyeurism were also non-significant (see Table 8).

Specifically, regression analysis predicting T2 voyeurism from condition, past exposure, and the interaction of condition and past exposure showed no main effect of condition [B

= 0.07, t (129) = 0.42, p = .68] and no interaction between condition and past exposure [B

= -0.12, t (129) = -1.35, p = .18]. As at T1, past exposure to objectifying media was positively associated with T2 voyeurism beliefs [B = 0.22, t (129) = 3.32, p < .01].

RQ1b asked if the immediate effect of exposure to centerfold images on males’ sexual reductionism beliefs would remain 48 hours after exposure. Regression analysis predicting T2 sexual reductionism from condition, past exposure, and the interaction of condition and past exposure gave an affirmative answer to RQ1b (see Table 9). Past exposure to objectifying media was positively associated with T2 sexual reductionism beliefs [B = 0.27, t (129) = 3.19, p < .01] and condition interacted with past exposure [B

= -0.26, t (129) = -2.42, p < .05]. The nature of the condition x past exposure interaction on sexual reductionism beliefs at T2 mirrored the nature of the condition x past exposure interaction on sexual reductionism beliefs at T1 (see Figure 5). Simple slope analyses suggested that recent, brief exposure to female centerfold images changes the sexual reductionism beliefs for up to approximately 48 hours of those who view pornography either never [B = 1.35, t (129) = 2.64, p < .01], once or twice a year [B = 1.09, t (129) =

2.62, p = .01], once every few months [B = 0.83, t (129) = 2.52, p < .01], or about once a month [B = 0.56, t (129) = 2.21, p < .05]. The T2 slope for males who view pornography several times a month was positive, but not reliable [B = 0.30, t (129) = 1.39, p = .17].

When past pornography exposure reached the once a week level, the T2 slope became essentially horizontal [B = 0.04, t (129) = 0.17, p = .87]. In sum, brief exposure to female centerfold images caused males who are exposed to objectifying media less frequently to endorse for up to approximately 48 hours sexual reductionism beliefs almost as strongly

as males who are exposed to objectifying media on a regular basis.

RQ1c asked if the immediate effect of exposure to centerfold images on males’ masculinity validation beliefs would remain approximately 48 hours after exposure.

Regression analysis predicting T2 masculinity validation from condition, past exposure, and the interaction of condition and past exposure showed that the immediate effect of exposure for males who less frequently view objectifying media did not obtain at the conventional alpha cutoff of .05 (see Table 10). Past exposure to objectifying media was positively associated with T2 masculinity validation beliefs [B = 0.31, t (129) = 3.57, p <

.01], but condition did not interact with past exposure at the p < .05 level [B = -0.21, t

(129) = -1.87, p = .06]. Figure 6 thus displays the interaction of condition and past exposure on males’ T2 masculinity validation beliefs for heuristic purposes only. As can be seen, the nature of the near-significant condition x past exposure interaction on masculinity validation beliefs at T2 closely resembles the nature of the significant condition x past exposure interaction on masculinity validation beliefs at T1 (see Figure

3).

RQ1d asked if the immediate effect of exposure to centerfold images on males’ trophyism beliefs would remain approximately 48 hours after exposure. Recall again that analyses carried out to test Hypotheses 1 and 2 showed no main or moderated T1 effect of exposure to centerfold images on males’ trophyism beliefs. Analyses of the main and moderated effects of condition on T2 trophyism were also non-significant (see Table 11).

Specifically, regression analysis predicting T2 trophyism from condition, past exposure, and the interaction of condition and past exposure showed no main effect of condition [B

= -0.03, t (129) = -0.13, p = .90] and no interaction between condition and past exposure

[B = -0.01, t (129) = -0.11, p = .92].

RQ1e asked if the immediate effect of exposure to centerfold images on males’ nonrelational sex beliefs would remain approximately 48 hours after exposure.

Regression analysis predicting T2 nonrelational sex from condition, past exposure, and the interaction of condition and past exposure gave an affirmative answer to RQ1e (see

Table 12). Past exposure to objectifying media was positively associated with T2 nonrelational sex beliefs [B = 0.45, t (129) = 5.00, p < .01] and condition interacted with past exposure [B = -0.38, t (129) = -3.36, p < .01]. The nature of the condition x past exposure interaction on nonrelational sex beliefs at T2 mirrored the nature of the condition x past exposure interaction on nonrelational sex beliefs at T1 (see Figure 7).

Simple slope analyses suggested that recent, brief exposure to female centerfold images changes the nonrelational sex beliefs for up to 48 hours of those who view pornography either never [B = 1.89, t (129) = 3.52, p < .01], once or twice a year [B = 1.51, t (129) =

3.46, p < .01], once every few months [B = 1.12, t (129) = 3.28, p < .01], or about once a month [B = 0.74, t (129) = 2.78, p < .01]. The T2 slope for males who view pornography several times a month was positive, but not reliable [B = 0.36, t (129) = 1.59, p = .11].

When past pornography viewing reached the once a week level, the T2 slope became essentially horizontal [B = -0.02, t (129) = 0.09, p = .93]. In sum, brief exposure to female centerfold images caused males who are exposed to objectifying media less frequently to believe for up to 48 hours in nonrelational sex beliefs almost as strongly as males who are exposed to objectifying media on a regular basis.

RQ1a-e summary. Research Questions 1a-e asked if the immediate effects (T1) of exposure to female centerfold images on males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs would persist approximately 48 hours after exposure (T2). Analyses carried out to test

Hypotheses 1and 2 found no immediate effect of exposure to female centerfold images on males’ voyeurism and trophyism beliefs, and analyses carried out to test RQ1 found no evidence of a delayed effect on these same variables at T2.

On the other hand, T1 analyses carried out to test H2 did find an immediate effect on sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, and nonrelational sex beliefs from exposure to female centerfold images for males who view objectifying media about once a month or less. Analyses carried out to test RQ1 showed that this effect persisted at T2 for sexual reductionism (RQ1b) and nonrelational sex (RQ1e) at conventional levels of significance. The effect also persisted for masculinity validation (RQ1c) at a marginal level of significance. Visual analysis of the marginal T2 masculinity validation interaction (see Figure 6) carried out for heuristic purposes showed that the T2 condition x past exposure interaction for masculinity validation was similar in nature to the significant T1 condition x past exposure interaction for masculinity validation. Finally, it is important to note that the analyses carried out for T2 sexual reductionism and T2 nonrelational sex show that even brief exposure to female centerfold images can cause males who are exposed to objectifying media less frequently to hold sexual reductionism and nonrelational sex beliefs approximately 48 hours after exposure as strongly or almost as strongly as males who view objectifying media on a regular basis.

Results Summary

This dissertation explored the immediate and distal effect of exposure to female centerfold images on a set of beliefs Brooks (1995, 1997) terms the “centerfold syndrome.” These beliefs include voyeurism, sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, trophyism, and nonrelational sex.

The results of the present study can be summarized succinctly. No main effect of exposure to female centerfold images was found for any of the centerfold syndrome beliefs. On the other hand, exposure to female centerfold images had an immediate strengthening effect on the sexual reductionism and nonrelational sex beliefs of males who less frequently view objectifying media and this effect persisted approximately 48 hours after exposure. Likewise, exposure to female centerfold images had an immediate strengthening effect on the masculinity validation beliefs of males who less frequently view objectifying media and this effect persisted at a marginally significant level approximately 48 hours after exposure. Recent, brief exposure to female centerfold images caused males who are less frequently exposed to objectifying media to hold sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, and nonrelational sex beliefs as strongly or almost as strongly as males who view objectifying media on a regular basis.

The interactions between recent exposure to objectifying media and past exposure to objectifying media found here do not suggest that males who frequently view objectifying content are unaffected by objectifying depictions. Past exposure to objectifying media was positively correlated with sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, and nonrelational sex beliefs. Thus, the findings of the present study suggest a

saturation effect, such that the impact of additional brief exposures to objectifying content on males’ beliefs simply becomes less dramatic with more frequent exposures.

V. DISCUSSION

Nature and Goals of the Present Study

This experimental study investigated whether exposing young adult males to female centerfold images causes them to believe more strongly in a set of beliefs clinical psychologist Gary Brooks (1995, 1997) terms “the centerfold syndrome.” Centerfold images are still-shot photographs of scantily clad or nude females. According to Brooks, female objectifying media such as centerfold images socialize males to (1) believe that voyeurism is natural and inevitable; (2) evaluate females in terms of their physical sexual appeal; (3) believe that their masculinity can be validated through sexual skill and conquest; (4) think of attractive females as trophies that can be used to gain social status; and (5) ascribe to a recreational, nonrelational sexual philosophy. These cognitions can be abbreviated to the following monikers: voyeurism, sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, trophyism, and nonrelational sex.

Brooks’ arguments are important to test for several reasons. First, females are frequently portrayed as sexual objects in U.S. media (Zurbriggen et al., 2007). Second, centerfold images may be heterosexual males most preferred form of objectifying media

(Brown & L’Engle, 2009; Emmers-Sommer & Burn; 2005; Paul, 2009). Third, research on the effects of objectifying media on males has generally been driven by concern for male-on-female aggression (Donnerstein, 1980; Donnerstein & Berkowitz, 1981; Linz,

1985; Malamuth & Centi, 1986; Padgett et al., 1989). The importance of aggression research is obvious, but some scholars have expressed concern that apprehension about

male aggression has led researchers to pardon objectifying portrayals for the less immediately destructive but still antisocial values they promote (Frable et al., 1997;

McKenzie-Mohr & Zanna, 1990). Brooks’ theorizing is novel in that it explores beliefs that many consider undesirable (Levant & Brooks, 1997) but are unrelated (at least immediately) to aggression.

An additional novelty of Brooks’ work is that it focuses on the harms that men themselves accrue from exposure to objectifying media. For instance, males who are guided by the centerfold syndrome may experience sexual (Peter & Valkenburg, 2009a;

Zurbriggen & Morgan, 2006) and relational dissatisfaction (Burn & Ward, 2005) because the philosophy of the centerfold syndrome is antithetical to emotional intimacy and vulnerability (Levant, 2003; Stoltenberg, 1989). The centerfold syndrome may also increase the likelihood of relational and sexual dissatisfaction by creating or activating in males unrealistic expectations for their partner’s physical appearance (Kenrick &

Gutierres, 1980; Kenrick et al., 1989; Weaver, Masland, & Zillmann, 1984). Belief in the centerfold syndrome may also lead to value-driven arguments and conflict between male adherents and their female partners (Brooks, 1995; Stock, 1997).

Another important reason for testing Brooks’ ideas is that they have heuristic appeal for many scholars but have been criticized because he relies primarily on personal experience and clinical observations to support his claims (Barbee, 1998). In sum, formal tests of Brooks’ formulations are important because of the ubiquity and popularity of centerfold images, because the effects he proposes chart underexplored sexual socialization territory and have practical significance for males’ lives, and because his

ideas are compelling but not grounded in quantitative research.

In addition to testing the straightforward effect of exposure to centerfold images on males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs, the present study explored the moderating potential of three variables: sexual explicitness of the centerfold images, males’ past exposure to objectifying media, and recency of exposure to the centerfold images.

Summary of Findings

The present study was guided by two hypotheses and one research question.

Hypothesis one predicted a main effect of exposure to centerfold images such that (a) males exposed to either explicit or nonexplicit centerfold images would adhere more strongly to the beliefs comprising the centerfold syndrome immediately following exposure than males who were not exposed to centerfold imagery, but (b) males exposed

to explicit centerfold images would express even stronger adherence to the beliefs comprising the centerfold syndrome immediately following exposure than males who saw nonexplicit images. Contrary to predictions, no main effect of exposure was observed for any of the centerfold syndrome variables.

Hypothesis two predicted that the anticipated main effect of exposure to centerfold images would be qualified by males’ past exposure to objectifying media.

Specifically, the second hypothesis predicted that the effect of recent exposure to centerfold images on males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs would be contingent upon their past exposure to objectifying media, such that males who less frequently view objectifying media would be more affected than males who frequently view objectifying media. Because analyses carried out to test the first hypothesis revealed non-significant differences between the explicit and nonexplicit groups, these groups were combined to increase power when testing the second hypothesis.

Analyses carried out to test the second hypothesis revealed a stronger conditioning effect of past exposure to objectifying media than was originally anticipated.

Specifically, results showed that exposure to centerfold images immediately strengthened the sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, and nonrelational sex beliefs of only those who view pornography about once a month or less. The sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, and nonrelational sex beliefs of those who view pornography several times a month, once a week, several times a week, once a day, or several times a day were not immediately strengthened by brief exposure to centerfold images. However, more frequent past pornography exposure was associated with stronger sexual

reductionism, masculinity validation, and nonrelational sex beliefs. These interactions, therefore, do not suggest that males who frequently view objectifying content are unaffected by exposure to such messages. Instead, they suggest a saturation effect, such that the impact of additional brief exposures simply becomes negligible at higher levels of past exposure. It is also important to note that the immediate effect on less frequent pornography viewers’ sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, and nonrelational sex beliefs from recent exposure to centerfold images was strong; it raised their level of agreement to or near to the level of frequent consumers of pornography. No immediate interaction effects were found for voyeurism or trophyism.

Research question one asked if the immediate effects (T1) of exposure to centerfold images on males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs would persist approximately 48 hours after viewing (T2). The interactions between recent exposure to centerfold images and past exposure to objectifying media on males’ sexual reductionism, nonrelational sex, and masculinity validation beliefs that were observed immediately after exposure were also observed approximately 48 hours after exposure, although the T2 masculinity validation interaction effect was only marginally significant. The interaction plot of the marginal T2 masculinity validation interaction revealed an interaction quite parallel to the significant T1 masculinity validation interaction. The nature of the conventionally significant T2 sexual reductionism and nonrelational sex interactions also mirrored the nature of their T1 counterparts. That is, exposure to centerfold images strengthened for approximately 48 hours the sexual reductionism and nonrelational sex beliefs of males

who view pornography about once a month or less, raising their level of agreement to or near to the level of frequent consumers of pornography.

Interpretation of Findings

Lack of Main Effects of Recent Exposure and Moderating Effect of Past Exposure

The present study predicted a main effect of recent exposure to centerfold images on males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs that would be conditioned by males’ past exposure to objectifying media. Specifically, it was hypothesized that (a) all males’ beliefs would be strengthened by recent exposure to centerfold images, but (b) males who more infrequently consume objectifying media would be more dramatically affected. A main effect of exposure was predicted because prior experimental research on the effects of objectifying media on sexual beliefs has often found straightforward exposure effects

(Lanis & Covell; 1995; Machia & Lamb, 2009; MacKay & Covell, 1997). That the strength of the effects of recent exposure would be conditioned by males’ exposure history was suggested by the psychological literature on priming (Higgins et al., 1985).

No main effects of recent exposure were detected. On the other hand, recent exposure to centerfold images did interact with past exposure to objectifying media to predict males’ sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, and nonrelational sex beliefs.

These interactions paralleled one another. Specifically, they showed that only males who view pornography about once a month or less were affected by recent exposure to centerfold images. Before exploring possible reasons for the lack of main effects, it is helpful to discuss the recent exposure x frequent past exposure interactions that were

found.

As discussed in the literature review, excitation transmission principles

(Anderson, 1983) are currently accepted as explanatory of the priming process (Wyer &

Radvansky, 1999). At their core, excitation transmission models of priming assume that external stimuli such as media messages affect social cognition by exciting, activating, and making accessible particular interconnected knowledge units or nodes in memory.

The increased accessibility of these units then increases the probability they will be utilized in applicable social situations. To put it another way, accessibility is the cognitive link between exposure to an external stimulus and the increased probability that the themes perceived in the stimulus will be utilized. But the perceived applicability of the activated knowledge is also critical (Higgins, 1996; Wright et al., 2011). Although accessibility and utilization are positively correlated, individuals with equally high levels of accessibility for particular beliefs will vary in their application of those beliefs depending on differences in their perceptions of the beliefs’ applicability (Higgins &

Brendl, 1995). To rearticulate in terms of the present study, a priming perspective would predict a positive correlation between exposure to centerfold images and males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs, but would also expect variability in exposed males’ level of adherence to the beliefs comprising the centerfold syndrome due to disparate applicability perceptions.

Priming models that employ excitation transmission principles can vary along several dimensions (Higgins, 1996). One area of difference concerns the nature of node activation and excitation. On one hand, models might presume that once the minimum

excitation level necessary for node activation is surpassed, node excitation is constant.

This perspective is known as the “binary” approach to activation because nodes are either inactive (and inaccessible) or active (and accessible). This approach is adopted by the synapse model of priming (Higgins et al., 1985). On the other hand, models may assume that excitation (and thus accessibility) is fully continuous. This approach maintains that nodes may continue to excite even after they are activated. From this perspective, nodes reach the level of accessibility identified by binary approaches just after being activated.

If they continue to excite, however, they will reach even higher levels of accessibility.

This is the approach taken by the cell assembly model of priming (Higgins et al., 1985).

The present study sided with the cell assembly stance that there is a post-activation accessibility continuum, but suggested that nodes have a maximum concentration point at which they reach their peak level of accessibility.

Predictions about the interplay between recent media exposure (i.e., recent priming) and past media exposure (i.e., chronic priming) hinge upon the priming model adopted. The synapse model would predict an interaction with no gradation, such that one class of viewers (those with “chronic” past exposure) would be unaffected by recent exposure, whereas another class of viewers (those with infrequent or “nonchronic” past exposure) would be affected by recent exposure. The synapse model represented an early attempt at model development and was shown to be inaccurate by Bargh et al. (1986).

Bargh et al. (1986) found that “chronics” were affected by recent priming, supporting the cell assembly model’s contention that activated nodes can be made even more accessible by recent priming. Bargh et al. (1986) concluded that the relationship between recent

priming and frequent priming was additive, as opposed to interactive. In other words, they concluded that recent priming exerts the same heightening effect on accessibility regardless of past priming frequency. Subsequent media effects research on the impact of violent and sexist content on individuals who have had such ideas activated frequently in the past (Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2007; Rudman & Borgida, 1995) has been interpreted as supporting the Bargh et al. (1986) conclusion that chronically activated nodes can be further excited by recent priming.

The results of the present study clarify and expand these findings. Specifically, the present study suggests that, as Bargh et al. (1986) argue, individuals who have had particular constructs activated with some regularity can be affected be recent activation events. Put in priming terminology, the present study’s results mesh with the notion that individuals who have at least some level of chronic accessibility for particular constructs can have those constructs made temporarily more accessible by recent priming. However, the results of the present study also suggest that the excitation level of nodes is not unbounded. At some point, the accessibility of a construct apparently becomes so pronounced that additional stimulation has a negligible effect. Correspondingly, the accessibility boost a node receives from recent priming appears to be inversely related to the number of times it has been primed in the past. Hence the nature of the recent exposure x past exposure interactions found in the present study. The strengthening effect on males’ sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, and nonrelational sex beliefs from recent exposure to centerfold images became progressively less pronounced at higher levels of past exposure to similar content, eventually becoming undetectable.

The prior discussion is of theoretical importance because it suggests yet another progression in our understanding of the priming process. The development of the synapse model of priming was important because it represented a shift away from mechanistic models of priming such as Wyer and Srull’s (1980) storage bin model to the excitation transmission approach that has by now become clearly more viable (Wyer & Radvansky,

1999). The cell assembly (Higgins et al., 1985) model tested by Bargh et al. (1986) represented an important progression in that it showed that construct activation was not binary, as the synapse model proposed. Individuals chronic on particular constructs were still affected by recent priming. The present study suggests what might be called a

“bounded cell” or “bounded node” model of priming. This model retains the properties of the cell assembly model (Hebb, 1949; Higgins et al., 1985), but proposes that cell or node excitation (and thus accessibility) is bounded. In contrast to the synapse model but in concert with the cell assembly model, node excitation in the bounded model extends beyond activation, but eventually reaches a saturation point. The effects of subsequent priming become less pronounced as a node reaches its saturation point. Once the saturation point has been reached, subsequent priming has little effect.

The most obvious explanation for why the present study did not obtain main effects, therefore, is the high degree of pornography consumption in the study’s sample.

Main effects analyses in experimental designs involve the comparison of experimental and control group means (Keppel, 1973). Random assignment renders the experimental and control groups equivalent, prior to treatment. When a treatment has a main effect, it significantly changes a high percentage of scores in the treatment group. Mean values are

100

weighted by predominant scores, so for a main effect to emerge a high percentage of experimental group participants must be affected by the treatment. The interaction effects in the present study revealed that only males who viewed pornography about once a month or less were significantly affected by recent priming. Only 29 of the 89 participants (32%) in the experimental groups viewed pornography about once a month or less. When these less frequent pornography viewers in the control and experimental groups were isolated and compared (i.e., control group vs. nonexplicit/explicit groups combined), immediate main effects emerged for sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, and nonrelational sex. When the more frequent pornography viewers who were unaffected by recent priming were included in the analysis, this main effect disappeared. This is predictable, given that these unaffected participants comprised 68% of the participants in the experimental groups.

Correspondingly, it is possible that similar prior studies using centerfold-type images and sampling undergraduate males (Lanis & Covell, 1995; MacKay & Covell,

1997) found overall main effects because their participants viewed objectifying media less frequently than the participants in the present study. Such studies did not index males’ past exposure to objectifying fare, but research that has looked at male undergraduates’ use of sexually explicit media suggests that the males in the present study were more regular viewers than normal. The best comparison point is a study of pornography use carried out at the same institution (Fox, 2006). Fox (2006) found that nearly a third (29%) of males in her study had never searched for pornography online and more than a third (36%) had never sought out a particular pornographic site. In the

101

present study, only 2% of participants said they had not viewed pornography in the prior year.

Goodson, McCormick, and Evans (2001) also studied the pornography use of collegiate males in the southwestern United States. The pornography use patterns of males in this study were more akin to the pornography use patterns in Fox (2006) than in the present study. Specifically, while 89% of the males in Goodson et al. (2001) said they used the Internet, close to half (41%) said they had never accessed sexually explicit content online.

Nationally representative data from the General Social Survey (GSS) also suggests that the males in the present study were especially apt to view pornography

(Wright, in press). Corresponding approximately to the year of Goodson et al. study

(2001), the year of Fox’s study (2006), and the year of the present study, 39.7% of U.S. males between 18 and 29 years of age said they had not viewed pornography in the prior year in GSS 2000, 41.1% said they had not in GSS 2002, 46% said they had not in GSS

2006, and 35.6% said they had not in GSS 2010 (GSS data is not available for 2001 or

2011). These percentages mirror the findings of Fox (2006) and Goodson et al. (2001.

They are incongruent with the findings of the present study. In sum, although the lack of prior exposure data reported in comparable effects studies makes it a speculative conclusion only, use data from other research is consistent with the idea that the main effects differential between the present study and similar prior studies may be attributable to the high level of exposure to objectifying media among the present study’s participants.

102

Sexual Explicitness

In addition to exploring if the effects of recent exposure to centerfold images vary according to males’ exposure history, the present study also explored whether the effects of recent exposure vary according to the sexual explicitness of the centerfold images themselves. Sexually explicit content has been defined as content that “depicts sexual activity in obvious, unconcealed ways” (Kelley et al., 1989, p. 58). When the content in question is centerfold images, sexual explicitness might be defined as content that depicts the physical sexual features of models in obvious, unconcealed ways.

Some males in the present study saw centerfold images of females in provocative attire, usually lingerie. Other males saw images of the same models, in the same locations, moments later having just revealed their breasts, vagina, or both.

Corresponding to conventional United States’ mores regarding the line between nonexplicit and explicit sexual content, the former images were considered “nonexplicit,” the latter images “explicit.” Explicit images were expected to have a more pronounced effect. Although males’ centerfold syndrome scores in the explicit condition were higher in four out of five instances than males’ scores in the nonexplicit condition, these differences were not statistically significant.

Sexual explicitness can be viewed as a particular type of message vividness.

Messages are vivid to the extent that they “leave nothing to the imagination” and contain

“descriptive details, especially exciting ones” (Microsoft Word Encarta Dictionary). Two theoretical perspectives on message vividness may inform the lack of an explicitness effect. The first perspective points to the possibility that explicitness effects may occur

103

for particular types of beliefs only. The second perspective points to the explicitness debate presented in the literature review: is it the message about sex or the intensity of the message about sex that determines sexual media effects?

The first perspective on message vividness might be called the “recall approach,” because it explains vividness effects in terms of the higher likelihood that a vivid message will be recalled than a pallid message when a judgment related to the message is called for. The premise underlying this approach is that the “emotionally interesting,”

“concrete,” “imagery-provoking,” and “sensory” nature of vivid information increases its availability in memory, and consequently, the likelihood it will be recalled and used to guide perceptions and decisions (Nisbett & Ross, 1980, p. 45). Recall oriented discussions about the effects of vividness often invoke Tversky and Kahneman’s (1974) availability heuristic (Shedler & Manis, 1986; Taylor & Thompson, 1982). “A person is said to employ the availability heuristic whenever he estimates frequency or probability by the ease with which instances or associations come to mind” (Tversky & Kahneman,

1973, p. 208). There is evidence that these principles are operable in the realm of “first- order” media effects (Hawkins & Pingree, 1982). First-order effects occur when media messages alter perceptions of the prevalence or probability of some social phenomenon

(Shrum, 2009). Vivid media messages are recalled more easily than less vivid media messages (Busselle & Shrum, 2003) and exposure to vivid media violence leads to higher estimates of the prevalence of societal crime and violence (Riddle, 2010).

The process through which vivid media messages affect “second-order” cognitions (Hawkins & Pingree, 1982), however, may be quite different (Shrum, 2009).

104

Second-order cognitions refer to beliefs, attitudes, and values about the social world.

Males’ beliefs about voyeurism, sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, trophyism, and nonrelational sex represent second-order cognitions. Shrum (2009) argues that first- order cognitions are affected by the recall of specific media content at the time of judgment, while second-order cognitions are affected during the exposure and message interpretation process. Vividness effects on second-order cognitions likely hinge on the

(a) the ability of vivid content to attract more attention during exposure than pallid content (McGill & Anand, 1989), thus increasing the likelihood of mental activity surrounding the message’s themes, and (b) congruency between the vivid content and the evaluative situation (Chang & Lee, 2010). This approach to vividness might be called the

“attention approach,” and is essentially a priming account of vividness effects: vividness leads to increased attention, increased attention leads to increased cogitation about message-related issues, cogitation enhances the accessibility of thoughts associated with the message, and increased accessibility leads to an increased likelihood that message- related themes will be used to make evaluations should an applicable situation arise

(Kisielius & Sternthal, 1986).

To review, the recall approach sees the role of vividness as increasing the availability in memory of specific media messages at the time of judgment and typically invokes the availability heuristic. If the only mechanism by which vividness yields an effect is the mechanism identified by the recall approach, then the lack of an explicitness effect in the present study has to do with the second-order beliefs explored. First-order beliefs are influenced by the availability of a media exemplar at the time of judgment,

105

and vividness provides an exemplar with an availability boost. Second-order beliefs, on the other hand, are influenced during the dynamics of the exposure process (Shrum,

2009). The recall approach provides no rationale for why second-order beliefs might be affected by vividness.

The attention approach, on the other hand, does provide such a rationale.

Vividness leads to enhanced attention, which spurs cogitation about and thus increased accessibility for the themes presented in the message. The attention approach would suggest that the failure of the present study to find differences in second-order beliefs in the nonexplicit and explicit groups can be traced to a weak manipulation of sexual explicitness. The attention approach would argue that the dissimilarities between the nonexplicit and explicit images were too subtle to expect a pronounced effect. It would point out that the dependent variable means in the explicit condition were higher in four out of five instances. It would go on to argue that a stronger manipulation would have pushed the means over the statistical significance threshold to allow for population generalizability.

The attention approach would also point to research findings suggesting that media companies have increased the sexual explicitness of their messages over time in an effort to enhance the novelty of their content. Novelty increases attention (Parmentier,

2008), a primary concern of all content creators (Harris, 2004). For example, advertisements featuring female models in men’s magazines such as Esquire (Reichert &

Carpenter, 2004) have become more explicit over time, as have centerfold images in adult magazines (Bogaert et al., 1993; Krassas et al., 2001). Several commentators have

106

observed this increase in explicitness (Brown & Steele, 1995; Huston et al., 1998;

Malamuth & Impett, 2001). If second-order effects are to be enhanced by sexual explicitness, more explicit images must capture significantly more attention than less explicit images. How novel is a Playboy centerfold in the year 2011 to the average young adult male accustomed to a highly explicit media environment? Not very novel, the attention approach would contend, suggesting the importance of explicitness manipulations that increase the probability of significant attention differentials in a particular study’s space and time.

The counter to the attention perspective is that it is the message about sex, not the explicitness of the message, that is the underlying cause of sexual media effects. For example, Linz et al. (1988) suggest that researchers interested in the effects of objectifying films consider the possibility that “it is the message about women as sex objects, rather than the sexual explicitness of the films” that causes antisocial attitudes towards women (p. 760). From this viewpoint, messages about sex that are similarly themed but varying in explicitness will yield parallel second-order belief effects, provided they have enough salience to at least capture a modicum of viewers’ attention.

The results of the present study support this perspective.

Given the paucity of experimental research employing strict explicitness manipulations, however, it is too early to draw any hard-line conclusions about the unimportance of sexual explicitness. Future research efforts employing more dramatic explicitness manipulations are needed. At present, all that can be concluded is that the minor reduction in sexual explicitness that United States’ culture uses to separates

107

centerfolds in mainstream magazines such as Maxim and Sports Illustrated from centerfolds in Playboy may be immaterial, from an effects perspective.

Are the recall and attention approaches to understanding the effects of sexual explicitness mutually exclusive? They are not. They simply focus on differing categories of social cognition. If “first-order and second-order judgments differ in how they are constructed, then it follows that the processes that underlie [media] effects on those judgments may also differ” (Shrum, 2009, p. 67). It remains a possibility that exposure to highly explicit sexual content affects both perceptions of the frequency of particular sexual occurrences and beliefs about the nature of human sexuality.

To summarize, the present study’s lack of an explicitness effect can be accounted for in several ways. First, it is possible that different results would have emerged if first- order beliefs were tested. This possibility is suggested by the work of Busselle and Shrum

(2003) and Riddle (2010) and is explained theoretically by what has been called the

“recall approach” to vividness effects. Second, it is possible that a more dramatic explicitness difference between the nonexplicit and explicit centerfold images would have resulted in significant effects on the second-order beliefs that were investigated.

This possibility is suggested by the direction of the dependent variable differences and what has been called the “attention approach” to vividness effects. If subsequent research employing stronger explicitness manipulations finds effects on both first-order and second-order beliefs, both the recall and attention approaches gain support. If stronger explicitness manipulations result in only first-order effects, the attention approach needs to be abandoned or retooled. If stronger explicitness manipulations yield null effects,

108

support is provided for the view that it is the nature of the message about sex that matters, not the explicitness of the message.

Duration of Effects

Whether the message is prosocial (Snyder, 2007), antisocial (Paul & Linz, 2008), political (Kiousis & McDevitt, 2008), or profit-driven (Desmond & Carveth, 2007), a question that should be of import for researchers interested in media effects is “How long do the effects of media messages persist?” (Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2007). Oriented to the present study’s context, this question translates to “How long do the effects of exposure to centerfold images on young adult males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs persist?”

Prior experimental research on the impact of viewing sexual media has found relatively long lasting effects. Zillmann and Bryant (1988) exposed college students and adult nonstudents to either video pornography or nonsexual sitcoms. A week after last exposure, viewing pornography led to more acceptance of premarital and extramarital sex, stronger belief in the inevitability of sexual promiscuity, and a reduced desire to have children, among other outcomes. Eyal and Kunkel (2008) found effects two weeks after exposure. Specifically, they found that college students who are shown mainstream television dramas depicting positive consequences of intercourse are less morally judgmental about the sexual behavior of the shows’ characters two weeks after last exposure than college students who are shown mainstream television dramas depicting negative consequences of intercourse. Zillmann and Bryant (1982) found effects three weeks after exposure. In this study, showing college students pornography led to higher

109

estimates of the percentage of people who engage in behaviors such as anal and oral sex, less concern about minors’ access to pornography, the opinion that rapists should spend less time incarcerated, and less support for the women’s liberation movement, among other outcomes.

Given that these studies employed adults and asked about sexual behaviors (e.g., oral sex, extramarital sex) and social debates participants were likely familiar with (e.g., the morality of premarital sex, the women’s liberation movement), many of these effects can be interpreted through the lens of priming. Roskos-Ewoldsen and colleagues argue that the staying power of media priming effects, in comparison to the longevity of priming effects in cognitive and social psychological studies, is understandable if one accepts the premise that media messages are more likely to prime “mental models.”

Mental models are mental representations of situations, events, or objects (Roskos-

Ewoldsen et al., 2009) and are thought to be more complex than the simple, perhaps even uninodal constructs that are activated in psychological research. Because of their complexity and “because we can easily visualize and contextualize mental models, the activation of a mental model should result in longer lasting effects” (Carpentier et al.,

2008, p. 201).

Although prior research indicates that media priming effects can persist for some time, predicting the precise duration of effects is difficult for several reasons. First,

Roskos-Ewoldsen and colleagues do not provide any formulae for calculating the persistence of media priming effects. Second, the base of studies to draw upon to make a time-course prediction is small (Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2007). Third, factors such as

110

frequency and duration of exposure impact the chronological trajectory of priming effects

(Higgins et al., 1985). Consequently, a study such as the present one that employs a very brief, one time exposure event cannot draw upon studies that have exposed participants to content over hours (Eyal & Kunkel) and weeks (Zillmann & Bryant, 1982; 1988) to inform predictions. Because Riddle’s (2010) study of the cognitive effects of media violence employed a 48 hour delay and had similar exposure frequency and duration levels as the present study, the same testing interval was employed here.

Results showed that the effects of brief exposure to fifteen centerfold images on males who view pornography about once a month or less did persist for approximately 48 hours. Specifically, these males’ sexual reductionism and nonrelational sex beliefs were significantly strengthened and their masculinity validation beliefs marginally strengthened, for approximately 48 hours. Moreover, even after two days had elapsed, these males expressed agreement at or close to the level of agreement expressed by males who consume pornography on a regular basis.

The practical implication of these findings is straightforward. Exposure to just a few handfuls of centerfold images can make males more sympathetic for up to 48 hours to the stance that females can be reduced to sexual objects, that an avenue for self-esteem and identity validation is the sexual conquest of females, and that sex devoid of commitment, intimacy, caring, and even liking for one’s partner is desirable. Given the ubiquity and popularity of these images, it seems safe to conclude that a fair number of young men in the United States at a given moment are under the psychosexual influence of the centerfold images they have viewed in the last 48 hours.

111

Clear cut theoretical implications, on the other hand, are difficult to draw. Do the results of the present study provide confirmatory evidence for Roskos-Ewoldsen and colleagues’ speculation that media content primes mental models, as opposed to some other cognitive structure? They do not. They simply provide another illustration of the staying power of media effects, as compared to priming effects found in network priming research in psychology. The results of this study are consistent with a mental models approach to priming, but do not represent a test of a mental models approach to priming.

A test of whether a simple network approach or a mental models approach best explains media priming would involve (a) mapping the conceptual differences that distinguish network priming and mental models onto concrete dependent variable operationalizations and (b) exposing individuals to media content and exploring the cognitive structures that are activated. For example, since network memory is semantic and mental models are semantic and episodic, a study finding that exposure to media content makes both semantic and episodic knowledge more accessible in memory would lend support to the mental models interpretation of priming.

Lack of Voyeurism and Trophyism Effects

The present study did not find any main or moderated effect of exposure to centerfold images on males’ voyeurism and trophyism beliefs. Can it be said, then, that the study’s results contradict the findings of prior studies that have found associations between exposure to objectifying content and beliefs akin to voyeurism (Kistler & Lee,

2010) and trophyism (Ward, 2002)? Such a conclusion would be difficult to defend, given that past exposure to objectifying media in the present study was positively and

112

significantly correlated with males’ voyeurism and trophyism beliefs.

An alternative explanation that is in line with the “bounded cell” perspective on priming described previously seems more plausible. To review, the bounded cell perspective generally concurs with the cell assembly model’s stance that the more nodes are activated the more accessible they become. And, holding applicability perceptions constant, the more accessible nodes become the stronger the priming effect. In cognitive media effects research, a “stronger effect” usually equates to “stronger agreement” with the particular belief or attitudinal items presented as dependent measures. In formulaic symbolism: frequent activation  higher accessibility  stronger agreement. According to the bounded cell perspective, though, the accessibility potential of knowledge units in memory is finite. Correspondingly, the accessibility boost a unit receives from recent priming should be inversely related to the number of times it has been activated in the past. This postulation fits with the past exposure x recent exposure interactions found in the present study.

It is instructive to remember, however, that past media exposure is important only because it represents past construct activation. In other words, past media exposure is only important in the realm of social cognition because it leads to the activation of particular beliefs in memory. Excitation transmission processes care little about the source of activation. Thus, the present study’s hypothesis about the nature of the interaction of past media exposure and recent media exposure can be restated in terms of construct activation. The statement “the centerfold syndrome beliefs of males who less frequently view objectifying media will be more affected by recent exposure to centerfold

113

images than the centerfold syndrome beliefs of males who frequently view objectifying media” can be subsumed into the statement “the centerfold syndrome beliefs of males who have less frequently had centerfold syndrome ideas activated in the past will be more affected by recent exposure to centerfold images than the centerfold syndrome beliefs of males who have frequently had centerfold syndrome beliefs activated in the past.” And, of course, media outlets are not the only source activating the centerfold syndrome in young males. Brooks (1995) identifies many potential sources of activation, including the family of origin and the peer group.

In lieu of direct data on the frequency with which non-mediated sources have activated the centerfold syndrome in the present study’s participants, how can an inference be made regarding these sources’ activation influence? The answer lies in the priming formula just outlined: frequent activation  higher accessibility  stronger agreement. Working backwards, the formula indicates that level of agreement should be a telling indicator of activation frequency. Correspondingly, males who express more agreement with a statement indicative of the centerfold syndrome have likely had such an idea activated more often in the past than males who express less agreement with a statement indicative of the centerfold syndrome. And, since “the centerfold syndrome beliefs of males who have less frequently had centerfold syndrome ideas activated in the past will be more affected by recent exposure to centerfold images than the centerfold syndrome beliefs of males who have frequently had centerfold syndrome beliefs activated in the past,” it is possible that the lack of effects found for voyeurism and trophyism can be traced to males’ holding more sympathetic attitudes towards these views prior to

114

viewing centerfold images than they did for sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, and nonrelational sex. In sum, if frequent activation lessens the effect of recent activation and frequent activation is indexed by agreement, then participants in the present study likely agreed more with voyeurism and trophyism beliefs than with sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, and nonrelational sex beliefs prior to the experimental manipulation. If this were the case, the experimental manipulation would have had less impact potential on these beliefs.

Inspection of the data of males who view pornography once a month or less provides support for this position. Since only males who view pornography about once a month or less were affected by recent exposure to centerfold images, it makes sense to explore this explanation using their data. Less frequently exposed participants in the control group on average moderately disagreed with statements measuring sexual reductionism (M = 2.63), masculinity validation (M = 2.89), and nonrelational sex (M =

2.70). On the other hand, they did not disagree on average with trophyism statements (M

= 3.65) and moderately agreed on average with voyeurism statements (M = 5.00). Since random assignment renders the experimental and control groups equivalent prior to treatment, it can be assumed that the views of less frequently exposed participants in the experimental group (i.e., those who saw nonexplicit and explicit images) were similar prior to treatment. Consequently, it is likely that the reason significant changes did not occur for voyeurism and trophyism but did occur for the other three centerfold syndrome beliefs is because less frequently exposed participants were more sympathetic to the former views from the outset due to other sources of social influence. Voyeurism and

115

trophyism scores were higher in the experimental group (M voyeurism = 5.5; M trophyism = 4.03) than the control group (M voyeurism = 5.0; M trophyism = 3.64) for less frequently exposed participants, but not at a statistically significant level.

Inspection of the data of males who view pornography more frequently (i.e., several times a month or more) also supports this interpretation. As has been discussed, no effect of recent exposure to centerfold images obtained for any centerfold syndrome beliefs for frequently exposed males. Corresponding to the voyeurism and trophyism beliefs of less frequently exposed males in the control group, frequently exposed males in the control group on average did not disagree or agreed with all the centerfold syndrome beliefs (M voyeurism = 5.71; M sexual reductionism = 3.72; M masculinity validation =

3.95; M trophyism = 4.34; M nonrelational sex = 4.88).

In sum, a common theme tying together all the statistically nonsignificant changes found in the present study is the original level of adherence participants expressed towards the centerfold syndrome, as inferred from control group scores. Significant shifts only occurred when participants originally disagreed at a moderate level with particular centerfold syndrome beliefs. When participants did not disagree or agreed, shifts in the direction of more agreement occurred, but not at a magnitude capable of achieving significance. A theoretical explanation for this pattern of results is offered by the bounded perspective on priming effects. Assuming the activated knowledge is applicable, the bounded approach argues that (a) frequent node activation leads to higher node accessibility and stronger priming effects, but (b) the accessibility boost a node receives from recent activation is inversely related to how frequently it has been activated in the

116

past. Point “b” is derived from the premise that the accessibility potential of nodes is finite. One activation history indicator is the frequency with which an individual has been exposed to particular messages. Another is the individual’s level of agreement with statements reflecting the construct or constructs of interest. If the bounded cell perspective is accurate, the effects of recent media priming should be less pronounced when individuals have already been exposed to media with these themes many times or are already sympathetic to the themes presented in the prime (presumably due to frequent activation from other sources of social influence). This is precisely what the present study found regarding the effects of recent exposure to centerfold images on males’ sexual beliefs.

Implications for Media Sex Research

The prior sections reviewed, interpreted, and attempted to account theoretically for the results of the present study. Implications for the media sex literature were only highlighted. This section integrates the findings of the present study with the findings of prior media sex studies. Results are discussed in terms of the literature on (a) the effects of female objectifying media on males, (b) the moderating role of sexual explicitness, (c) the duration of sexual media effects, and (d) the effects of media sex on the sexuality of adolescents and young adults.

The Effects of Female Objectifying Media on Males

It is often asserted that sexually objectifying depictions of females are a staple of the media environment in the United States. For instance, Fredrickson and Roberts (1997)

117

argue that the “proliferation of sexualized images of the female body” has been “fast and thorough” and “has clearly permeated our cultural milieu” (p. 177).

Scholars interested in adverse effects on females from exposure to objectifying depictions have focused on a wide array of outcomes (Moradi & Huang, 2008;

Zurbriggen et al., 2007). Scholars interested in how objectifying media affects males, on the other hand, have tended to focus on a small subset of outcomes related to sexual aggression. Meta-analyses indicate that aggression-related concerns about the effects of objectifying media on males are warranted (Allen, D’Alessio, & Brezgel, 1995; Allen,

Emmers, Gebhardt, & Giery, 1995; Mundorf, Allen, D’Alessio, Emmers-Sommer, 2007;

Paik & Comstock, 1994). Survey and experimental studies support the contention that objectifying media contribute to rape myth acceptance and acceptance of violence in interpersonal relationships. Experimental studies support the claim that viewing objectifying media increases the likelihood of aggression after exposure. A recent meta- analysis suggests that the pathway through which objectifying depictions enhance aggression is cognitive as opposed to physiological (Mundorf et al., 2007).

Do objectifying depictions alter only the aggression-related cognitions of males?

Several sexual socialization scholars have suggested the answer is “No,” encouraging researchers to explore the less immediately destructive but still antisocial values such depictions promote (Bogaert et al., 1993; Cowan & Campbell, 1994; McKenzie-Mohr &

Zanna, 1990). According to Brooks’ centerfold syndrome theory (1995, 1997), objectifying media socialize males to (1) believe that voyeurism is natural and inevitable;

(2) evaluate females in terms of their physical sexual appeal; (3) believe that their

118

masculinity can be validated through sexual skill and conquest; (4) think of attractive females as trophies that can be used to gain social status; and (5) ascribe to a recreational, nonrelational sexual philosophy.

An emerging body of survey research (Peter & Valkenburg, 2009b; Ward et al.,

2005; Zurbriggen & Morgan, 2006) indicates that self-reported exposure to objectifying media is positively correlated with beliefs similar to those Brooks identifies. Several experimental studies suggest the causal role of objectifying depictions in such associations (Kistler & Lee, 2010; Ward & Friedman, 2006). These studies have sampled from both the adolescent and young adult populations. They have also explored a wide array of media known to objectify females, including reality television, music videos, sitcoms, dramas, adult movies, and sexually explicit online content.

The results of the present study buttress and expand on these findings. They buttress these findings by showing once again that both induced and self-reported exposure to objectifying content is positively associated with beliefs that are unrelated to aggression but that many psychologists nevertheless consider harmful to both males and females (Levant & Brooks, 1997). They expand on these findings in several ways. First, they expand on prior findings by showing that exposure to the objectifying genre after which Brooks named his theory (i.e., female centerfold images) has a causal effect on the sexual beliefs of some males. This is an important finding for two reasons. First, images of the centerfold variety appear with regularity in a multiplicity of venues (e.g., magazines, magazine advertisements, commercial websites, Internet newsgroups).

Second, evidence suggests that centerfolds are the most popular form of sexual media

119

among males (Brown & L’Engle, 2009; Emmers-Sommer & Burns, 2005; Paul, 2009).

Additionally, the approach to effects assessment in prior research has been haphazard; prior studies have not invoked any particular theoretical framework. The present study moves this literature forward by testing a unified theory of male sexual socialization, Brooks’ (1995) centerfold syndrome theory. In sum, the results of the present study both reinforce and add to the literature on the effects of objectifying media on males.

The Effects of Sexual Explicitness

That sexually explicit media (i.e., pornography) can affect viewers has been shown by many studies (Linz & Malamuth, 1993; Mundorf et al., 2007). Although a less voluminous literature, ample studies now suggest that less explicit sexual content in mainstream media such as television sitcoms, music videos, and feature films also affects viewers (Wright, 2011; Wright et al., 2011; Ward, 2003). But do explicit mediated depictions lead to stronger cognitive effects than less explicit mediated depictions? This is an important question that has received little research attention.

A few survey studies assessing viewers’ sexual beliefs suggest the importance of explicitness. Peter and Valkenburg (2007) surveyed Dutch adolescents between the ages of 13 and 18 about their opinions of women and exposure to mainstream media known to objectify females such as sitcoms, dramas, and sports magazines. Adolescents were also asked about their exposure to sexually explicit media such as adult magazines, videos, and movies on the Internet. Only explicit exposure predicted agreement with statements indicating females are sex objects in a multiple regression analysis including both the

120

explicit and nonexplicit predictors. Taylor (2006, Study 1) surveyed male undergraduates about their acceptance of premarital sexual permissiveness and exposure to mainstream

(e.g., Maxim) and explicit (e.g., Playboy) magazines. Only explicit magazine exposure correlated significantly with males’ premarital sexual permissiveness when both variables were utilized as predictors. Strouse et al. (1994) found that teenage males who mostly watched R and X rated movies were more accepting of sexually harassing behaviors than males who mostly watched PG and PG-13 rated movies.

Unfortunately, the correlational nature of these studies precludes any confident conclusions about the importance of sexual explicitness. Any number of other factors could have explained the differences that were found (e.g., differing characters, differing models, specifics of the messages presented, more selective exposure to explicit content).

Only an experimental design that holds all factors constant save for the explicitness of the depiction can make claims confidently about the moderating impact of increased sexual explicitness. The present study represents such a design and found no differences in males’ beliefs who had seen either provocatively posed centerfold images bereft of nudity or with nudity.

In sum, the results of the present study did not support the hypothesis that more explicit depictions have a more powerful socializing effect on viewers than less explicit depictions. It is possible, however, that (a) differential effects would have emerged if alternative dependent measures were employed or (b) a more dramatic explicitness manipulation would have resulted in differential effects on the beliefs that were investigated. In sum, the results of the present study represent only an initial foray into

121

the question of the moderating role of sexual explicitness.

Chronological Persistence of Media Sex Effects

Numerous experimental studies have established that exposure to sexual media content can immediately impact the cognitions of viewers. Immediate effects have been found for many age groups, including grade school students (Greenberg, Perry, & Covert,

1983), middle school students (Greeson & Williams, 1986), high school students (Ward

& Friedman, 2006), college students (Hansen & Hansen, 1988), and adults (Zillmann &

Bryant, 1988). Immediate effects have been found for both whites (Gan, Zillmann, &

Mitrook, 1997) and nonwhites (Johnson, Adams, Ashburn, & Reed,1995). Immediate effects have been found for a range of stimuli, including music videos (Calfin, Carroll, &

Shmidt, 1993), mainstream movies (Mazur & Emmers-Sommer, 2002), television dramas

(Farrar, 2006), sitcoms (Ward, 2002), talk shows (Ferguson, Berlin, & Noles, 2005), adult videos (McKenzie-Mohr & Zanna, 1990), sexual audio tapes (Malamuth & Check,

1980), and sexual text (Malamuth, Haber, & Feshbach, 1980). Immediate effects have been found across a range of cognitions, including approval of premarital sex (Greeson &

Williams, 1986), belief in rape myths (Weisz & Earls, 1995), adversarial sexual beliefs

(Kalof, 1999), the belief that men are sex driven and that dating is a game (Ward, 2002), estimates of peers’ sexual promiscuity (Taylor, 2005b), attitudes toward non-traditional families (Mazur & Emmers-Sommer, 2002), and attitudes towards condoms (Farrar,

2006).

Only a handful of experimental studies, on the other hand, have explored the chronological persistence of media sex effects. Linz et al. (1988) found that showing

122

male college students “slasher” films such as Texas Chainsaw Massacre lowered their levels of empathy towards a female victim of rape two days after their last viewing session. Several studies have found effects between 3 and 7 days after last exposure

(Bryant & Rockwell, 1994; Malamuth & Check, 1981; Mullin & Linz, 1995). For example, Malamuth and Check (1981) assigned college students to see either two films featuring rewarded sexual violence or two films devoid of sexual violence. Viewing rewarded sexual violence led to an increased belief in rape myths. Effects of sexually explicit films have been found one week (Zillmann & Bryant, 1988) and three weeks

(Zillmann & Bryant, 1982) after last exposure, and effects of sexual television dramas have been found two weeks after last exposure (Eyal & Kunkel, 2008).

These studies share three important commonalities. First, they all exposed participants to at least two hours of content. This is important because duration of exposure should enhance the persistence of media sex effects (Higgins et al., 1985).

Second, they all employed video stimuli. This is important because some have theorized that the delivery format of sexual media content may moderate effects (Taylor, 2005b).

Third, with the exception of Eyal and Kunkel (2008), they all exposed participants to media sex on multiple occasions. This is important because frequency of exposure should enhance the persistence of media sex effects (Higgins et al., 1985). Consequently, the present study makes an important contribution to the media sex literature by showing that effects can persist for up to 48 hours even when participants are exposed to nonvideo sex for 15 minutes or less on a single occasion.

123

Effects of Media Sex on Adolescents and Young Adults

Communication researchers have been primarily interested in the effects of media sex on young adults and adolescents. This research orientation emerged for several reasons, including youths’ high degree of exposure to sexual media, youths’ interest in learning about sex, adults’ reluctance to communicate with youth about sex, and the potentially life-altering consequences that can accompany sexual activity (Bleakley,

Hennessy, Fishbein, Coles, & Jordan, 2009; Brown, Halpern, & L’Engle, 2005; Brown,

Walsh-Childers, & Waszak, 1990; Sutton, Brown, Wilson, & Klein, 2002; Wright, 2011).

Research on the effects of sexually explicit content dominated the field until recent years. Societal concern about the effects of sexually explicit content have been so pronounced that the governments of the United States, Great Britain, Canada, South

Africa, and Australia have all carried out formal investigations (Mundorf et al., 2007). A large experimental literature has accumulated indicating the capacity of sexually explicit content to affect young adults’ cognitions and behaviors (Linz & Malamuth, 1993;

Mundorf et al., 2007).

Sexually explicit experimental research with adolescents has not been conducted, for ethical reasons. Several longitudinal studies strongly suggest, however, that sexually explicit content also impacts the cognitions and behaviors of adolescents. As one cognitive example, Peter and Valkenburg (2009b) found a positive association between

Dutch adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit online content in 2006 and their belief that women are sex objects in 2007, even after controlling for relevant confounds. As one behavioral example, Ybarra et al. (2011), found a positive association between United

124

States adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit content in 2006 and subsequent sexually aggressive behavior in the next 36 months, even after controlling for relevant confounds.

Recent longitudinal research strongly suggests that mainstream media sex also affects adolescents’ sexuality. For instance, prospective United States research has found that exposure to mainstream media sex at an earlier time period predicts sexual outcomes at a later time period such as number of sexual partners (Wingood et al., 2003), contracting a sexually transmitted disease (Wingood et al., 2003), initiating intercourse

(Brown et al., 2004), advancing in noncoital sexual activity (Collins et al., 2004), and being involved in a pregnancy (Chandra et al., 2008). These associations have remained even after the following confounds were considered: baseline sexual behavior, age, having mostly older friends, household structure, parental education, parental monitoring, academic achievement, mental health, sensation seeking tendencies, engaging in deviant behavior, gender, socioeconomic status, pubertal status, valence of relationship with mother, parenting styles, parents’ disapproval of sex, religiosity, religious attendance, school connectedness, permissive peer sexual norms, unsupervised time at home, peers’ approval of sex, physical development, and relationship status.

These studies are buffered by a handful of experiments. For example, music videos have been shown to affect adolescents’ attitudes towards premarital sex (Greeson

& Williams, 1986) and prime-time programs have been shown to affect adolescents’ sexual morality (Bryant & Rockwell, 1994).

But can mainstream media sex affect young adults? Is explicitness required to change the sexual cognitions of this older and more sexually experienced population? A

125

growing body of experimental research suggests that mainstream sexual content can indeed impact the sexuality of young adults. Experiments using mainstream depictions have generated effects on young adults’ belief in rape myths (Malamuth & Check, 1981), sexual expectations (Hansen & Hansen, 1988), sexual callousness (Linz et al., 1988), adversarial sexual beliefs (Kalof, 1999), sexual stereotypes (Ward, 2002), perceptions of sexual harassment (Ferguson et al., 2005), and attitudes towards safe-sex (Farrar, 2006), among other outcomes (see Wright et al., 2011, for a review). The present study represents another building-block in the construction of this growing literature. It replicates the findings of prior experimental research showing that still-shot images of objectified females such as those found in Maxim can affect young adults’ perceptions of sex (Lanis & Covell, 1995; MacKay & Covell, 1997). It adds to the literature by exploring the effects of these images on a specific set of beliefs that Brooks (1995) calls the “centerfold syndrome.”

In sum, a literature once focused almost exclusively on sexually explicit media has begun to explore in detail the effects of sexual content in mainstream fare. Although convincing, this literature is not without limitations. The following sections of the paper address the inadequacies of the present study and suggest directions for future research.

Although geared towards the study of objectifying media on males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs, many of the suggestions are applicable to media sex research in general.

126

Limitations and Future Directions

Limitations of the present study and corresponding directions for future research are presented below. First, suggestions are offered regarding measurement. Second, possible procedural changes are explored. Third, different stimuli possibilities are discussed. Fourth, sample considerations are surveyed.

Measurement

Testing effect. The present study was interested in whether the immediate effects of exposure to centerfold images on males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs would persist for approximately 48 hours. To address this question, dependent measures were administered to both control and treatment participants immediately after treatment and approximately

48 hours after treatment. Analyses revealed significant differences between the control and treatment groups on three of the five centerfold syndrome measures at both assessment periods for males who are less frequently exposed to objectifying content.

Test-retest procedures are common in social research and have many advantages

(Howell, 2002; Singer & Willett, 2003). One disadvantage when the test-retest interval is brief and self-report measures are employed, however, is that participants may at retest feel the need to be consistent with their original responses (Reid, 2011). If this were the case in the present study, the persistence of the immediate effects at retest would be an artifact of the design employed.

According to Babbie (2004), however, this internal validity issue is less of a problem when the beliefs under examination are tinged with social undesirability, as the beliefs in the present study arguably were (e.g., “There is nothing wrong with men being

127

primarily interested in a woman’s body,” “Something is wrong with a guy who turns down a chance to score with a woman.”). When socially undesirable beliefs are tested and retested, upon retest participants may have “figured out” the nature of the study and may actually respond in ways “that will make them look good” (p. 230). In the present study, for example, participants may have realized that their original responses were sexist and demeaning to women upon retest. If Babbie (2004) is correct, the persistence of effects in the present study is telling in terms of the power of centerfold images. Future studies, however, should treat time as a between-groups variable (i.e., administer dependent variable items to half of participants immediately after exposure and half approximately 48, 72, hours etc. after exposure) to ensure the duration of effects findings in the present study were not due to a consistency effect of testing.

Restricted range. The present study measured males’ agreement with the beliefs comprising the centerfold syndrome using a standard seven-option Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = moderately disagree, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5

= moderately agree, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree) and the study produced several significant, theoretically consistent results. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that there are shades of agreement and disagreement that this 1-7 point scale did not assess. It is possible that a more nuanced set of response options might have yielded significant results where null findings emerged.

For example, a fair number of participants selected “neither agree nor disagree” as the response reflecting their stance. While it is possible that these participants were truly neutral, it is also possible that a lack of gradation between the “neither agree nor

128

disagree” option and the “moderately agree/disagree” options led to an artificially large number of neutral selections. Human beings are, after all, generally motivated to have opinions (Petty, Rucker, Bizer, & Cacioppo, 2004). Adding “slightly agree/disagree” to the scale between “moderately agree/disagree” and “neither agree nor disagree” could have lead to different results. For instance, recall that the overall trend uncovered for explicit/nonexplicit group differences was for explicit group participants to express more agreement than nonexplicit participants. Yet in four out of five instances, the average explicit group response was to simply not disagree with the centerfold syndrome beliefs.

Perhaps if “slightly agree” had been an option, more participants in the explicit group would have selected this choice, pushing the explicit/nonexplicit group differences over the significance threshold. Likewise, perhaps making more agreement options available would have allowed for a more sensitive detection of the effects of recent exposure on males more frequently exposed to objectifying media.

First-order beliefs. As explained in the interpretation of the sexual explicitness results, it is possible that the type of belief affected by vivid messages is of the first-order variety. First-order effects occur when media messages alter perceptions of the prevalence of some social phenomenon (Shrum, 2009). Future centerfold syndrome research investigating the effects of sexually objectifying messages that are more or less explicit should explore first-order beliefs related to the centerfold syndrome.

The items employed in the present study can easily be translated from second- order to first-order language. An example translation for each belief is as follows. The voyeurism item “It is okay to admire women’s bodies as they pass by on the street” can

129

be translated to “What percentage of men feel it is ok to admire women’s bodies as they pass by on the street?” The sexual reductionism item “If cosmetic surgery would make my partner more attractive I would strongly encourage it” can be translated to “What percentage of men would encourage their partner to get cosmetic surgery if it made her more attractive?” The masculinity validation item “There is nothing more validating than getting an attractive woman to have sex” can be translated to “What percentage of men base their self-esteem on their ability to sexually attract beautiful women?” The trophyism item “Having a beautiful partner is a good way for a man to boost his social status” can be translated to “What percentage of men try to obtain beautiful partners to boost their social status?” The nonrelational sex item “I don’t need to be committed to a person to have sex with them” can be translated to “What percentage of men would have sex with someone they don’t care about just for fun?”

Procedure

Frequency manipulation. Treatment participants in the present study were exposed to centerfold images on just one occasion. This one-time exposure event changed the centerfold syndrome beliefs of only males less frequently exposed to objectifying media. It is possible that increasing exposure frequency would have led to detectable effects for at least some groups of frequently exposed males (e.g., males who view pornography several times a month). The findings of Zillmann and Bryant (1982) provide an empirical basis for this possibility. They explored the effects of video pornography on various sexual beliefs, comparing a “no exposure” group that saw no video pornography to an “intermediate exposure” group that saw three adult films a

130

session over six weeks to a “massive exposure” group that saw six adult films a session over six weeks. Mean comparisons revealed liner effects of a control group < intermediate group < massive group nature for a variety of sexual beliefs. While intermediate exposure did have an effect, massive exposure had an even stronger effect.

Consequently, while the present study maintains its position that at some point nodes become so excited that subsequent stimulation has negligible or nil effects, it acknowledges the possibility that very intense stimulation might show an effect on already activated nodes that less intense stimulation would not show. Additionally, it is possible that differential effects of sexually explicit content might emerge under conditions of heightened exposure frequency (Riddle, 2010).

Recency manipulation. Ascertaining how long the effects of exposure to objectifying media affect males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs is important for both theoretical and practical reasons. Prior experimental media sex research has found effects one (Zillmann & Bryant, 1988), two (Eyal & Kunkel, 2008), and three weeks after last exposure (Zillmann & Bryant, 1982). Extrapolating duration rules from prior research is difficult for several reasons, however. Frequency of exposure and duration of exposure may moderate the length of effects. Variations in stimuli may moderate the length of effects. Effects may be more likely to persist for some outcome variables than for others.

The present study found that the second-order centerfold syndrome beliefs of young adult males exposed to 15 centerfold images for no more than 60 seconds each on one occasion can be changed for at least 48 hours. Future research should assess whether these effects persist for 72 hours, 96 hours, and so on. After the duration period for this

131

particular design is established, subsequent research should explore whether changes in the number of centerfolds shown, the duration each centerfold is shown, the characteristics of the participants, and the nature of the measures employed to index the centerfold syndrome moderate the chronological trajectory of effects.

Stimuli

Beyond centerfold images. The effect of objectifying portrayals other than centerfold images on males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs should also be explored.

Females are portrayed as sexual objects in a variety of ways in many genres, including mainstream movies (Eschholz et al., 2002), music videos (Conrad et al., 2009), primetime sitcoms and dramas (Eaton, 1997), televised professional wrestling (Woo & Kim, 2003), mainstream magazines (Krassas et al., 2003; Lambiase, 2007), adult magazines (Bogaert et al., 1993), magazine advertisements (Carpenter & Edison, 2005), video games (Behm-

Morawitz & Mastro, 2009), and websites (Lambiase, 2003). The effects of centerfold images are important to study because they are emphasized by Brooks (1995) and because they are ubiquitous and popular among males. But exploring the contribution made by other objectifying portrayals on the centerfold syndrome is also important.

More explicit explicitness. As discussed in the interpretation of the sexual explicitness results, it is possible that a more dramatic explicitness manipulation would have yielded significant differences between the nonexplicit and explicit groups. Details were not provided in that discussion, however, on how to enhance the sexual explicitness of centerfold images.

Centerfold images are still-shot photographs of females who are posed in sexual

132

ways but who are not engaged in sexual conduct with another person. Based on the definitions of explicitness and vividness outlined previously, it can be seen that centerfold images become more explicit when they feature the physical sexual features of models in more obvious, unconcealed ways, provide more descriptive details, and leave less and less to the imagination. The next paragraph suggests several ways to increase the explicitness of centerfold images based on these definitions. While not exhaustive, it is externally valid. Centerfold images distributed by pornographic outlets do vary along the following lines.

First, close-up shots are more explicit than distance shots. Second, full screen shots are more explicit than thumbnail shots. Third, shots that provide more visual information about the model’s anatomy are more explicit. For example, centerfold images that feature fully nude models vary greatly in the degree of vaginal detail they provide. “Soft-core” outlets such as Playboy provide little vaginal detail. “Hard-core” outlets such as Hustler provide more vaginal detail. The more graphic and detailed the visual, the more explicit it is. Fourth, shots that feature models in obvious sexual positions (e.g., on all fours, legs spread) are more explicit than shots that feature models in positions less immediately associated with sexual activities (e.g., standing, sitting).

Fifth, shots that feature models engaged in self-stimulation are more explicit than shots that do not. Future research should explore whether particular explicitness differences

(e.g., close-ups vs. distance shots) differentially affect males and whether the particular differences have a cumulative effect (e.g., close-up, full screen shots with great vaginal detail vs. distant, thumbnail shots with little vaginal detail). Future effects research

133

should also expand these explicitness parameters to objectifying content other than centerfold images.

Humanizing portrayals. According to Fredrickson and Roberts, (1997) “the common thread running through all forms of sexual objectification is the experience of being treated as a body (or collection of body parts) valued predominately for its use to

(or consumption by) others” (p. 174). According to Brooks (1995), it is this construction of the female person as an object for sexual acquisition and consumption that encourages the centerfold syndrome. If objectifying portrayals of females are the problem, it makes sense to ask whether humanizing portrayals are the solution. Do mediated depictions of females as complete human beings, as individuals with goals, personalities, intellects, families, friends, aspirations, feelings, hopes, and desires beyond sex counteract the centerfold syndrome? This question awaits future research.

Realistic portrayals. Because males’ demand for sexualized images of females may be too much for media profiteers to resist, future research should also assess whether the effects of sexualized female images on males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs are muted by the depiction of average-looking females. After all, many components of the centerfold syndrome seem to hinge on female beauty. Voyeuristic obsession is grounded in aesthetics. It may be easier to reduce females’ to sexual objects when their physical beauty is overpowering. And the ability of sexual conquest to self-validate males and impress others depends on the appearance of the female who has been conquered or acquired.

It has been suggested that depictions of average looking female models in

134

advertising is less detrimental, maybe even helpful, to female viewers with body image issues (Johnston & Taylor, 2008). Perhaps sexualized depictions of average looking females exacerbates the centerfold syndrome less dramatically than depictions of highly attractive females. Future research should test this possibility.

Sample Characteristics

Age. The present study explored the effects of centerfold images on a set of beliefs among young adult males that Brooks (1995) calls the “centerfold syndrome.”

Consistent with Brooks’ theorizing, recent exposure to centerfold images changed three of the five centerfold syndrome beliefs of certain males and exposure to objectifying media in the prior year was positively associated with all five centerfold syndrome beliefs among all males. In sum, the present study supports the stance that the sexual beliefs of young adults are still amendable by sources of sexual social influence (Arnett, 2004) and thus worthy of research consideration.

It may be even more important to study the role of objectifying media on adolescent males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs, however. First, adolescents readily acknowledge that they turn to mediated outlets for sexual information (Bleakley et al.,

2009; Brown et al., 2005; Sutton et al., 2002). Second, younger adolescents typically have less sexual experience than young adults and thus less personal experience with which to evaluate the veracity of sexual media messages (Brown et al., 1990; Huston et al., 1992). Third, lessons about sex learned at a young age may hold primacy over later lessons (Huesmann, 1986).

Given that most adolescents are exposed to objectifying depictions in their day-to-

135

day media experiences, some researchers will find it defensible to conduct this research experimentally (Ward et al., 2005; Ward & Friedman, 2006). Others researchers may believe that survey methods are more ethically defensible (Peter & Valkenburg, 2007).

Given the wide variety of views on media sex, adolescent sexuality, and the trade-offs between potential harm to subjects and the social benefits of research on sensitive topics, no mandate can be given. Interested researchers should consult Huston et al. (1998) for a comprehensive discussion of the ethics of sexual media research with children and adolescents.

Ethnicity. The majority of participants in the present study self-identified as

“White” (76.70%). Some research suggests that Whites are more affected by media sex than Nonwhites (Brown et al., 2006), other research suggests the opposite (Collins et al.,

2004). It seems likely that ethnicity, in and of itself, has little bearing on the outcomes of exposure to media sex. If ethnicity has an impact, it probably occurs through intervening factors such as character identification.

For example, rap music is often misogynistic and objectifying (Conrad et al.,

2009). While enjoyed by both White and Black youth, rap and hip-hop performers are primarily Black. If identification is enhanced by ethnic similarity (Eastman & Liss, 1980) and identification enhances media effects (Huesmann, Lagerspetz, & Eron, 1984), then the centerfold syndrome beliefs of Black youth should be more affected by rap music than the beliefs of White youth. In sum, future centerfold syndrome research should explore more diverse samples and investigate ethnic differences in effects, but should view ethnicity as an individual difference that leads to differential effects through some

136

intervening variable such as character identification.

Viewer involvement. Identification is not the only viewer involvement variable that may moderate the effects of exposure to objectifying media on males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs (Ward & Rivadeneyra, 1999). First, males who perceive objectifying depictions of females in the media to be realistic may be more affected than males who do not see such depictions as realistic. For example, Taylor (2005b) found that exposure to sexual television caused college students to make higher estimates of their female peers’ level of sexual promiscuity, but only when they perceived television to be realistic.

Second, males who are especially interested in or preoccupied by media content with objectifying themes may be more affected than males who view such content at a similar rate but who are less engaged. For instance, Ward (2002) found that male undergraduates who are selective, involved television viewers, and who speak with others about the shows they watch are more likely to hold sexually objectifying beliefs about women.

Likewise, the centerfold syndrome beliefs of males who have instrumental motives for consuming sexual media may be more affected than the beliefs of males who do not have instrumental motives for viewing. For example, Aubrey et al. (2003) found that male undergraduates who watch sexual television for instrumental purposes have higher expectations for sexual variety in romantic relationships.

On the other hand, males who consume sexual media with a critical, skeptical orientation may be less affected by the messages they receive (Bryant & Rockwell,

1994). Future centerfold syndrome research should assess the moderating role of these involvement variables.

137

Media dependency. Another factor that may moderate the effects of objectifying media on males’ centerfold syndrome beliefs is “media dependency” (Hetsroni, 2008).

According to Rubin (2002), dependence on the media for guidance “results from an environment that restricts the availability of functional alternatives” (p. 536). Parents

(Wright, 2009), medical professionals (Schuster, Bell, Peterson, & Kanouse, 1996), and educators (Brown et al., 2002) are often reticent to engage young people in sexual discussions. Nevertheless, some youth are fortunate enough to have adults in their lives who are willing to answer questions and engage in discussions about human sexuality.

Such discussions should buffer young males from the effects of objectifying media, assuming the adults in engaged in these talks hold views antithetical to the sexist, consumptive, and emotionally bereft view of sex promoted by the centerfold syndrome.

Future research should investigate this possibility.

Final Summary and Conclusion

This experimental study investigated whether exposing young adult males to female centerfold images causes them to believe more strongly in a set of beliefs clinical psychologist Gary Brooks (1995, 1997) terms “the centerfold syndrome.” Exposure to centerfold images significantly strengthened the sexual reductionism and nonrelational sex beliefs and marginally strengthened the masculinity validation beliefs of those who view pornography about once a month or less for up to 48 hours. Frequent self-reported past pornography exposure was associated with stronger sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, and nonrelational sex beliefs across all participants. These interactions,

138

therefore, do not suggest that males who frequently view objectifying content are unaffected by exposure to such messages. Instead, they suggest a saturation effect, such that the impact of additional brief exposures simply becomes negligible at higher levels of past exposure. Differences between males exposed to explicit vs. nonexplicit centerfold images were not found.

The practical significance of these findings is as follows. First, they show that exposure to female centerfold images, a genre of objectifying media that is both ubiquitous and popular, causes some males to be more sympathetic to beliefs that Brooks

(1995) and other men’s counselors believe are harmful not only to females but to males themselves (Levant & Brooks, 1997). Second, they show that even brief, one time exposure to such images can have a strong and persistent effect on the beliefs of males who are less frequently exposed to objectifying media. Third, they suggest that the more males view objectifying depictions, the more sympathetic they become to the sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, and nonrelational sex components of the centerfold syndrome. The experimental manipulation proved that exposure to one type of objectifying media – centerfold images – has a causal, strengthening effect on the sexual reductionism, masculinity validation, and nonrelational sex beliefs of males less

139

frequently exposed to objectifying content. The positive correlations between self- reported exposure to pornography and these beliefs shows that exposure to objectifying content is positively associated with adherence to these aspects of the centerfold syndrome for all males. Although selective exposure cannot be ruled out as an alternative explanation, the causal shift that was found among less frequently exposed males suggests that males who frequently view objectifying content are affected by what they see, just less dramatically so as they become more regular viewers.

Fourth, these findings inform the utility of the line between explicit centerfold images and nonexplicit centerfold images drawn by United States culture. Specifically, if the cultural goal of restricting young males’ access to outlets such as Playboy is the prevention of the development of centerfold syndrome type beliefs, than youths’ access to outlets such as Maxim and Sports Illustrated should be restricted as well. For example, in the 1968 case Ginsberg v. New York, the Supreme Court ruled that the state could restrict minors’ access to explicit “girlie” magazines “because the Supreme Court recognized the important state interest in protecting the welfare of children” (Pember &

Calvert, 2011, p. 479). Similarly, the logic that Florida law uses to restrict underage males’ access to magazines such as Penthouse is that such material is “harmful to minors” (Pember & Calvert, 2011, p. 479).

To be clear, the present study is not advocating such censorship. It is simply pointing out that if the logic driving differential restrictions to outlets such as Playboy and Maxim is that the explicitness of the images in the former is more corrupting, such logic is not supported by the present study. The present study found these images to be

140

indistinguishable, from an effects perspective.

The results of the present study are also theoretically important. As Bargh et al.

(1986) contend, they suggest that individuals who have had particular constructs activated with some regularity in the past can still be affected be recent activation events.

However, they also suggest that the excitation level of nodes is not unbounded. At some point, the accessibility of a construct apparently becomes so pronounced that additional stimulation has a negligible effect. This perspective on node excitation and accessibility might be called a “bounded cell” or “bounded node” model of priming. This perspective explains why the strengthening effect of recent exposure to centerfold images declined incrementally at higher levels of past exposure to objectifying media. Future media priming research should attempt to replicate this interaction.

Future centerfold syndrome research should consider the following avenues. At the level of measurement, future research should (a) assign different participants to the immediate assessment and delayed assessment groups to avoid testing effects, (b) expand the response range of the outcome variables, and (c) explore changes in first-order beliefs. At the procedural level, future research should (a) manipulate frequency of exposure and (b) test for the continuation of effects at more distal intervals (e.g., 72 hours, 96 hours). At the level of stimuli, future research should (a) study objectifying media beyond centerfold images, (b) employ stronger explicitness manipulations, and (c) see if humanizing portrayals of females or sexualized portrayals of average looking females combat the centerfold syndrome. At the level of the audience, future research should (a) study adolescent males, (b) study males of varying ethnic backgrounds, (c)

141

assess the moderating role of viewer involvement variables, and (d) assess the moderating role of media dependency.

142

Notes

1. Brooks uses the word “syndrome” metaphorically. “The Centerfold Syndrome is presented not as a formal clinical syndrome, but rather as a useful distillation of ideas about the problems of men in encounters with women and sexuality” (Brooks, 1997, p.

31).

2. A “Google scholar” search for the phrase “centerfold syndrome” on September 12,

2010 yielded 107 hits.

3. MediaLab allows for a maximum but not a minimum display period for this particular type of item.

143

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations

Variable Mean (SD) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Voyeurism (T1) 5.62 (1.01) .82** .48** .45** .50** .51** .40** .37** .62** .57**

2. Voyeurism (T2) 5.23 (0.96) - .50** .57** .45** .55** .38** .42** .59** .63**

3. Sex. Reduc (T1) 3.60 (1.30) - - .86** .66** .68** .47** .50** .54** .50**

4. Sex. Reduc (T2) 3.42 (1.20) - - - .59** .68** .47** .57** .54** .58**

5. Masc. Val (T1) 3.80 (1.30) - - - - .82** .54** .55** .61** .57**

6. Masc. Val (T2) 3.63 (1.24) - - - - - .56** .66** .71** .68**

7. Trophyism (T1) 4.25 (1.15) ------.81** .45** .37**

8. Trophyism (T2) 4.09 (1.19) ------.44** .46**

9. Nonrl. Sex (T1) 4.42 (1.41) ------.90**

144

10. Nonrl. Sex (T2) 4.27 (1.32) ------

*p < .05. **p < .01.

145

Table 2 Condition Means and Standard Deviations for each Centerfold Syndrome Belief, Immediately Following Exposure Condition Centerfold Syndrome Belief Control Nonexplicit Explicit Voyeurism 5.50 (1.02) 5.68 (0.84) 5.66 (1.16) Sexual Reductionism 3.40 (1.45) 3.63 (1.03) 3.78 (1.40) Masculinity Validation 3.64 (1.41) 3.83 (1.10) 3.93 (1.38) Trophyism 4.14 (1.27) 4.25 (0.96) 4.36 (1.21) Nonrelational Sex 4.24 (1.61) 4.41 (1.32) 4.60 (1.29) Note. Centerfold Syndrome Beliefs measured on a (1) disagree strongly to (7) agree strongly scale.

146

Table 3 Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting T1 Voyeurism R2 F B β sp Model .08* 3.82 Conditiona 0.14 0.07 .07 Past exposure 0.21** 0.39 .24 Condition x Past -0.12 -0.18 -.11 exposure aRecoded control = 0; exposure groups 1. *p < .05. **p < .01.

147

Table 4 Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting T1 Sexual Reductionism R2 F B β sp Model .10 4.97** Conditiona 0.26 0.10 .10 Past exposure 0.33** 0.49 .30 Condition x Past -0.36** -0.42 -.26 exposure aRecoded control = 0; exposure groups 1. *p < .05. **p < .01.

148

Table 5 Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting T1 Masculinity Validation R2 F B β sp Model .07 2.98* Conditiona 0.21 0.08 .08 Past exposure 0.26** 0.39 .24 Condition x Past -0.27* -0.31 -.19 exposure aRecoded control = 0; exposure groups 1. *p < .05. **p < .01.

149

Table 6 Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting T1 Trophyism R2 F B β sp Model .06* 2.80 Conditiona 0.14 0.06 .06 Past exposure 0.18* 0.31 .19 Condition x Past -0.08 -0.10 -.06 exposure aRecoded control = 0; exposure groups 1. *p < .05. **p < .01.

150

Table 7 Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting T1 Nonrelational Sex R2 F B β sp Model .22 11.96** Conditiona 0.21 0.07 .07 Past exposure 0.52** 0.71 .44 Condition x Past -0.40** -0.43 -.26 exposure aRecoded control = 0; exposure groups 1. *p < .05. **p < .01.

151

Table 8 Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting T2 Voyeurism R2 F B β sp Model .11** 5.19 Conditiona 0.07 0.04 .04 Past exposure 0.22** 0.45 .28 Condition x Past -0.12 -0.18 -.11 exposure aRecoded control = 0; exposure groups 1. *p < .05. **p < .01.

152

Table 9 Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting T2 Sexual Reductionism R2 F B β sp Model .08* 3.84 Conditiona 0.21 0.08 .08 Past exposure 0.27** 0.44 .27 Condition x Past -0.26* -0.33 -.21 exposure aRecoded control = 0; exposure groups 1. *p < .05. **p < .01.

153

Table 10 Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting T2 Masculinity Validation R2 F B β sp Model .11** 5.12 Conditiona 0.08 0.03 .03 Past exposure 0.31** 0.48 .30 Condition x Past -0.21† -0.25 -.16 exposure aRecoded control = 0; exposure groups 1. †p = .06 *p < .05. **p < .01.

154

Table 11 Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting T2 Trophyism R2 F B β sp Model .16 1.17 Conditiona -0.03 -0.01 -.01 Past exposure 0.11 0.17 .11 Condition x Past -0.01 -0.02 -.01 exposure aRecoded control = 0; exposure groups 1. *p < .05. **p < .01.

155

Table 12 Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting T2 Nonrelational Sex R2 F B β sp Model .42** 9.15 Conditiona 0.23 0.08 .08 Past exposure 0.45** 0.65 .40 Condition x Past -0.38** -0.44 -.27 exposure aRecoded control = 0; exposure groups 1. *p < .05. **p < .01.

156

Figure 1. Condition means for each centerfold syndrome belief, immediately following exposure.

157

Figure 2. Interaction of condition and past exposure to objectifying media on T1 sexual reductionism.

158

Figure 3. Interaction of condition and past exposure to objectifying media on T1 masculinity validation.

159

Figure 4. Interaction of condition and past exposure to objectifying media on T1 nonrelational sex.

160

Figure 5. Interaction of condition and past exposure to objectifying media on T2 sexual reductionism.

161

Figure 6. Interaction of condition and past exposure to objectifying media on T2 masculinity validation.

162

Figure 7. Interaction of condition and past exposure to objectifying media on T2 nonrelational sex.

163

APPENDIX A: CENTERFOLD IMAGES

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

APPENDIX B:

DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT

ID *In the following box enter the first letter of your last name and the last four digits of your cellular phone number.

DEMOGRAPHICS *How old are you? * What is your race or ethnic background? 1 White 2 Black 3 Asian 4 Hispanic 5 Middle Eastern 6 Decline to state 7 Other *What religion are you? 1 Christian 2 Jewish 3 Islamic 4 Buddhist 5 Hindu 6 I do not belong to a religion 7 Other *How would you describe your sexual orientation? 1 Heterosexual 2 Homosexual 3 Bisexual

CHILDHOOD ATTACHMENT *Who was your primary caregiver growing up? 1 Birth mother 2 Adopted mother 3 Birth father 4 Adopted father 5 Other *My primary caregiver was generally rejecting. *My primary caregiver was generally warm.

194

*My primary caregiver was generally sympathetic. 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Moderately disagree 4 Neither agree nor disagree 5 Moderately agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree

RELIGIOSITY *Being religious is important to me. *My behavioral decisions are based on my religious beliefs. *I often attend religious services. 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Moderately disagree 4 Neither agree nor disagree 5 Moderately agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree RELATIONSHIP STATUS *I am in an exclusive romantic relationship with a female partner that I care for very much. *I am in a committed romantic relationship with a female partner that I have strong feelings for. *I am in a monogamous romantic relationship with a female companion that I really like. 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Moderately disagree 4 Neither agree nor disagree 5 Moderately agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree

PAST EXPOSURE *How often have you viewed pornography in the last year? 1. Never 2. Once or twice 3. Once every few months 4. About once a month 5. Several times a month

195

6. Once a week 7. Several times a week 8. Once a day 9. Several times a day

VOYEURISM *Men are “hardwired” to want to look at women’s bodies. *It is okay to check out an attractive woman at a bar or dance club. *It is natural for a man to admire pretty women and look at their bodies, even if he has a girlfriend. *When women are out at a club, it is okay to think of them as ‘eye candy.’ *It is okay to admire women’s bodies as they pass by on the street. 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Moderately disagree 4 Neither agree nor disagree 5 Moderately agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree SEXUAL REDUCTIONISM *The best thing about women is their bodies. *If cosmetic surgery would make my partner more attractive I would strongly encourage it. *Women should spend a lot of time trying to be pretty; no one wants to date a woman who has ‘let herself go.’ *There is nothing wrong with men being primarily interested in a woman’s body. *Using her body and looks is the best way for a woman to attract a man. 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Moderately disagree 4 Neither agree nor disagree 5 Moderately agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree

MASCULINITY VALIDATION *There is nothing more validating than getting an attractive woman to have sex. *Something is wrong with a guy who turns down a chance to score with a woman. *Men love a challenge and often choose to pursue the seemingly unattainable woman. *Real men know how to pull hot chicks. *A man who can’t drive his partner crazy in bed isn’t much of a man.

196

1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Moderately disagree 4 Neither agree nor disagree 5 Moderately agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree

TROPHYISM *It’s embarrassing to date a woman who is physically unattractive. *Men try not to date physically unattractive women because their friends will think less of them. *Men who can get any woman into bed demand respect. *Being with an attractive woman gives a man prestige. *Having a beautiful partner is a good way for a man to boost his social status. 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Moderately disagree 4 Neither agree nor disagree 5 Moderately agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree NONRELATIONAL SEX *It’s ok to have ongoing sexual relationships with more than one partner. *It’s possible to enjoy sex with a person and not like him/her.| *The best sex is with no strings attached. *One night stands are sometimes very enjoyable. *I don’t need to be committed to a person to have sex with them. *I would like to have sex with many partners. *Life would have fewer problems if we could have sex more freely. *Sex as a simple exchange of favors is ok if both people agree. *It’s ok for sex to be just good physical release. *Casual sex is acceptable. 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Moderately disagree 4 Neither agree nor disagree 5 Moderately agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree

197

PRE-IMAGE SPORTS QUESTIONS *I am a sports fanatic. *I'm a huge fan of University of Arizona athletics. *Sports teach valuable life lessons. *Most professional athletes are overpaid. *If I could have chosen any career, it would have been a professional athlete. 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Moderately disagree 4 Neither agree nor disagree 5 Moderately agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree SPORTS IMAGE QUESTIONS *The shooting form on this jump-shot is? 1 Very poor 2 Poor 3 Neutral/I don't know 4 Good 5 Very good *The technique on this golf-swing is? 1 Very poor 2 Poor 3 Neutral/I don't know 4 Good 5 Very good *This football player is? *This baseball player is? *This hockey player is? 1 Overrated 2 Average 3 Neutral/I don't know 4 Good 5 Very good CENTERFOLD IMAGE QUESTION *How attractive do you find this model? 1. Very unattractive 2. Unattractive

198

3. Neither unattractive or attractive 4. Attractive 5. Very attractive SPORTS QUESTIONS MIXED IN WITH DV QUESTIONS *The Lakers will win the 2010-2011 title and make it a "three-peat." 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Moderately disagree 4 Neither agree nor disagree 5 Moderately agree 6 Agree 7 Strongly agree *Who among the following NBA players is the best leader? *The year is 2010. You are an NBA general manager and can pick one of the following players to build your team around. Who do you pick? *Which of the following NBA players is least likely to be arrested for drunk driving? *Game 7, NBA finals. Your favorite team has one free throw to shoot to win the title and you can select one of the following players to take the shot. Who do you pick? *Which of the following NBA players is the best passer? *Who among the following NBA players is the best defender? *If the following NBA players were running for President of the United States who would you vote for? *Among the following NBA players the most athletic is? *Which of the following NBA players would score highest on the SAT? 1 Kobe Bryant 2 LeBron James 3 Dwyane Wade 4 Chris Paul 5 Steve Nash 6. Dwight Howard 7. Don't know/Don't have an opinion

199

REFERENCES

Aguinis, H. (2004). Regression analysis for categorical moderators. New York: Guilford. Allen, M., D’Alessio, D., & Brezgel, K. (1995). A meta-analysis summarizing the effects of pornography II: Aggression after exposure. Human Communication Research, 22, 258-283. Allen, M., Emmers, T., Gebhardt, M., & Giery, M. (1995). Pornography and rape myth acceptance. Journal of Communication, 45, 5-26. Anderson, J.R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 261-295. Andsager, J.L., & Roe, K. (1999). Country music video in country’s year of the women. Journal of Communication, 49, 69-82. Arnett, J. (2002). The sounds of sex: Sex in teens’ music and music videos. In J. Brown, J.R. Steele, & K. Walsh-Childers (Eds.), Sexual teens, sexual media (pp. 253- 264). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Arnett, J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. New York: Oxford. Attorney General's Commission on Pornography. Final report (1986, July). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Aubrey, J. S., Harrison, K., Kramer, L., & Yellin, J. (2003). Variety versus timing. Gender differences in college students’ expectations as predicted by exposure to sexually oriented television. Communication Research, 30, 432–460. Aubrey, J.S., Henson, J.R., Hopper, K.M., & Smith, S.E. (2009). A picture is worth twenty words (about the self): Testing the priming influence of visual sexual objectification on women’s self-objectification. Communication Research Reports, 26, 271-284. Aubrey, J.S., & Taylor, L.D. (2009). The role of lad magazines in priming men’s chronic and temporary appearance-related schemata: An investigation of longitudinal and experimental findings. Human Communication Research, 35, 28-58. Babbie, E. (2004). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

200

Baker, C.N. (2005). Images of women’s sexuality in advertisements: A content analysis of Black and White oriented women’s and men’s magazines. Sex Roles, 52, 13- 27. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Baran, S. J. (1976a). How TV and film portrayals affect sexual satisfaction in college students. Journalism Quarterly, 53, 468–473. Baran, S. J. (1976b). Sex on TV and adolescent self-image. Journal of Broadcasting, 20, 61–68. Barbee, A.P. (1998). Show me the data. Contemporary Psychology, 43, 230. Bargh, J.A. (1984). Automatic and conscious processing of social information. In R.S. Wyer & T.K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (pp. 1-43). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bargh, J.A., Bond, R.N., Lombardi, W.J., & Tota, M.E. (1986). The additive nature of chronic and temporary sources of construct accessibility. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 50, 869-878. Bargh, J.A., & Chartrand, T.L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54, 462-479. Bargh, J.A., Lombardi, W.J., & Higgins, E.T. (1988). Automaticity of chronically accessible constructs in person x situation effects on person perception: It’s just a matter of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 599-605. Bargh, J. A, & Pratto, F. (1986). Individual construct accessibility and perceptual selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 293-311. Beasley, B., & Standley, T.C. (2002). Shirts vs. skins: Clothing as an indicator of gender stereotyping in video games. Mass Communication and Society, 5, 279-293. Behm-Morawitz, E., & Mastro, D. (2009). The effects of the sexualization of female video game characters on gender stereotyping and female self-concept. Sex Roles, 61, 808-823. Berkowitz, L., & Rogers, K.H. (1986). A priming effect analysis of media influence. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Perspectives on media effects (pp. 57-81). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

201

Bleakley, A., Hennessy, M., Fishbein, M., Coles, H.C., & Jordan, A. (2009). How sources of sexual information relate to adolescents' beliefs about sex. American Journal of Health Behavior, 33, 37-48. Bogaert, A.F., Turkovich, D.A., & Hafer, C.L. (1993). A content analysis of Playboy centerfolds from 1953 through 1990: Changes in explicitness, objectification, and model’s age. The Journal of Sex Research, 30, 135-139. Braun-Courville, D.K., & Rojas, M. (2009). Exposure to sexually explicit web sites and adolescent sexual attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 156- 162. Brooks, G. (1995). The centerfold syndrome. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Brooks, G. (1997). The centerfold syndrome. In R.F. Levant & G.R. Brooks (Eds.), Men and sex (pp. 28-57). New York, NY: Wiley. Brosius, H., Weaver, J.B., & Staab, J.F. (1993). Exploring the social and sexual “reality” of contemporary pornography. The Journal of Sex Research, 30, 161-170. Brown, J.D., Halpern, C.T., & L’Engle, K.L. (2005). Mass media as a sexual super peer for early maturing girls. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36, 420-427 Brown, J.D., & L’Engle, K.L. (2009). X-Rated: Sexual attitudes and behaviors associated with U.S. early adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit media. Communication Research, 36, 129-151. Brown, J.D., L’ Engle, K.L., Pardun, C.J., Guo, G., Kenneavy, K., & Jackson, C. (2006). Sexy media matter: Exposure to sexual content in music, movies, television, and magazines predicts Black and White adolescents’ sexual behavior. Pediatrics, 117, 1018-1027. Brown, J. D., & Steele, J. R. (1995). Sex and the mass media. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation. Brown, J. D., Steele, J. R., & Walsh-Childers (2002). Preface. In J. Brown, J. R. Steele, & K. Walsh-Childers (Eds.), Sexual teens, sexual media (pp. xi-xiv). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Brown, J. D., Walsh-Childers, K. W., & Waszak, C. S. (1990). Television and adolescent sexuality. Journal of Adolescent Health Care, 11, 62–70. Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women, and rape. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

202

Bryant, J. (1985, March). Frequency of exposure, age of initial exposure, and reactions to initial exposure to pornography. Report presented to the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography, Houston, TX. Bryant, J. & Rockwell, S. C. (1994). Effects of massive exposure to sexually oriented prime-time television programming on adolescents' moral judgment. In Zillmann, D., Bryant, J. & Huston, A. C. (Eds.), Media, Children, and the Family (pp. 183- 195). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Burgess, M., Stermer, S.P., Burgess, S.R. (2007). Sex, lies, and video games: The portrayal of male and female characters on video game covers. Sex Roles, 57, 419-433. Burn, S.M., & Ward, A.Z. (2005). Men’s conformity to traditional masculinity and relationship satisfaction. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6, 254-263. Busby, L.J., & Leichty, G. (1993). Feminism and advertising in traditional and nontraditional women’s magazines, 1950s-1980s. Journalism Quarterly, 70, 247- 264. Bushman, B.J. (1995). Moderating role of trait aggressiveness in the effects of violent media on aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 950-960. Bushman, B.J., & Huesmann, R. (2006). Short-term and long-term effects of violent media on aggression in children and adults. Archives of Pediatric Medicine, 160, 348-352. Busselle, R.W., & Shrum, L.J. (2003). Media exposure and exemplar accessibility. Media Psychology, 5, 255-282. Calfin, M. S., Carroll, J. L., & Shmidt, J. (1993). Viewing music-videotapes before taking a test of premarital sexual attitudes. Psychological Reports, 72, 475–481. Cantor, J., Mares, M., & Hyde, J.S. (2003). Autobiographical memories of exposure to sexual media content. Media Psychology, 5, 1-31. Carpenter, C., & Edison, A. (2005, May). Taking it off all over again: The portrayal of women in advertising over the past forty years. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New York, NY. Carpentier, F., Roskos-Ewoldsen, D.R., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, B.B. (2008). A test of the network models of political priming. Media Psychology, 11, 186-206. Chandra, A., Martino, S. C., Collins, R. L., Elliott, M. N., Berry, S. H., Kanouse, D. E., Miu, A. (2008). Does watching sex on television predict teen pregnancy? Findings from a national longitudinal survey of youth. Pediatrics, 122, 1047- 1054.

203

Chang, C.T., & Lee, Y.K. (2010). Effects of message framing, vividness congruency, and statistical framing on responses to charity advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 29, 195-220. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press. Collins, R. L., Elliott, M. N., Berry, S. H., Kanouse, D. E., Kunkel, D., Hunter, S. B., et al. (2004). Watching sex on television predicts adolescent initiation of sexual behavior. Pediatrics, 114, 280–289.

Conrad, K., Dixon, T., & Zhang, Y. (2009). Controversial rap themes, gender portrayals and skin tone distortion: A content analysis of rap music videos. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53, 134-156. Cowan, G. (1992). Feminist attitudes toward pornography control. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 165-177. Cowan, G., & Campbell, R.R. (1994). Racism and sexism in interracial pornography: A content analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 323-338. Cowan, G., & Dunn, K.F. (1994). What themes in pornography lead to perceptions of the degradation of women? The Journal of Sex Research, 31, 11-21. Cowan, G., Lee, C., Levy, D., & Snyder, D. (1988). Dominance and inequality in x-rated videocassettes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 299-311. Desmond, R., & Carveth, R. (2007). The effects of advertising on children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. In R.W. Preiss, B.M. Gayle, N. Burrell, M. Allen, & J. Bryant (Eds.), Mass media effects research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 169-179). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dill, K.E., Gentile, D.A., Richter, W.A., & Dill, J.C. (2005). Violence, sex, race, and age in popular video games: A content analysis. In E. Cole & J. Henderson Daniel (Eds.), Featuring females: Feminist analyses of media (pp. 115-130). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Dill, K.E., & Thill, K.P. (2007). Video game characters and the socialization of gender roles: Young people’s perceptions mirror sexist depictions. Sex Roles, 57, 851- 864. Dixon, T.L., & Linz, D.G. (1997). Obscenity law and sexually explicit rap music: Understanding the effects of sex, attitudes, and beliefs. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 25, 217-241. Donnerstein, E. (1980). Aggressive erotica and violence against women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 269-277.

204

Donnerstein, E., & Berkowitz, L. (1981). Victim reactions in aggressive erotic films as a factor in violence against women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 710-724. Donnerstein, E., & Hallam, J. (1978). Facilitating effects of erotica on aggression against women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1270-1277. Donnerstein, E., & Smith, S. (2001). Sex in the media: Theory, influences, and solutions. In D. G. Singer, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 289–307). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Duggan, S.J., McCreary, D.R. (2004). Body image, eating disorders, and the drive for muscularity in Gay and Heterosexual men: The influence of media images. Journal of Homosexuality, 47, 45-58. Eastman, H., & Liss, M. (1980). Ethnicity and children’s preferences. Journalism Quarterly, 57, 277-280. Eaton, B.C. (1997). Prime-time stereotyping on the new television networks. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 859-872. Edelman, B. (2009). Red light states: Who buys online adult entertainment? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23, 209-220. Emmers-Sommer, T. M., & Burns, R. J. (2005). The relationship between exposure to Internet pornography and sexual attitudes toward women. Journal of Online Behavior, 1 (4). Eschholz, S., Bufkin, J., & Long, J. (2002). Symbolic reality bites: Women and racial/ethnic minorities in modern film. Sociological Spectrum, 22, 299-334. Eyal, K., & Kunkel, D. (2008). The effects of sex in television drama shows on emerging adults’ sexual attitudes and moral judgments. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52, 161-181. Farrar, K. M. (2006). Sexual Intercourse on Television: Do safe sex messages matter? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 635-650. Fazio, R.H., Sanbonmatsu, D.M., Powell, M.C., & Kardes, F.R. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 229- 238. Feldt, L.S. (1961). The use of extreme groups to test for the presence of a relationship. Psychometrika, 26, 307-316.

205

Ferguson, T., Berlin, J., & Noles, E. (2005). Variation in the application of the ‘promiscuous female’ female stereotype and the nature of the application domain: Influences on sexual harassment judgments after exposure to the Jerry Springer Show. Sex Roles, 52, 477-487. Fisher, R.D., Cook, I.J., & Shirkey, E.C. (1994). Correlates of support for censorship of sexual, sexually violent, and violent media. Journal of Sex Research, 31, 229-240. Fowler, R.L. (1992). Using the extreme groups strategy when measures are not normally distributed. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 249-259. Fox, J. (2006). Sex differences in college students’ internet pornography use (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Arizona, Tucson. Frable, D., Johnson, A.E., & Kellman, H. (1997). Seeing masculine men, sexy women, and gender differences: Exposure to pornography and cognitive constructions of gender. Journal of Personality, 65, 311-354. Fredrickson, B.L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experience and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173-206. Gallup, G. (1985, March 18). A Newsweek poll: Mixed feelings on pornography. Newsweek, p. 60. Gan, S.L., Zillmann, D., & Mitrook, M. (1997). Stereotyping effect of Black women’s sexual rap on White audiences. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 381– 399. Goodson, P., McCormick, D., & Evans, A. (2001). Searching for sexually explicit materials on the Internet: An exploratory study of college students’ behavior and attitudes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30, 101-118. Gow, J. (1990). The relationship between violent and sexual images and the popularity of music videos. Popular Music and Society, 14, 1-9. Granqvist, P. (2002). Attachment and religiosity in adolescence: Cross-sectional and longitudinal evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 260–70. Grauerholz, E., & King, A. (1997). Primetime sexual harassment. Violence Against Women, 3, 129-148. Greenberg, B. (1988). Some uncommon television images and the drench hypothesis. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Applied social psychology annual: Vol. 8. Television as a social issue (pp. 88-102). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

206

Greenberg, B.S., Perry, K.L., & Covert, A.M. (1983). The body human: Sex education, politics and television. Family Relations, 32, 419-425. Greenberg, B. S., Siemicki, M., Dorfman, S., Heeter, C., Stanley, C., Soderman, A., & Linsangan, R. (1993). Sex content in R-rated films viewed by adolescents. In B. S. Greenberg, J. D. Brown, & N. Buerkel-Rothfuss (Eds.), Media, sex, and the adolescent (pp. 45–58). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Greeson, L. E., & Williams, R. A. (1986). Social implications of music videos for youth: An analysis of the content and effects of MTV. Youth and Society, 18, 177–189. Griffin, S. (1984). Pornography and silence. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Gunter, B. (2002). Media sex: What are the issues? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gunter, B., & Stipp, H. (1992). Attitudes to sex and violence on television in the United States and in Great Britain: A comparison of research findings. Medien Psychologie, 4, 267-286. Hamilton, A. (2010). American Psychological Association commends house bill aimed at promoting more positive images for girls. Retrieved September 11, 2010 from http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/03/healthy-media-youth.aspx Haninger, K., & Thompson, K.M. (2004). Content and ratings of teen-rated video games. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291, 856-865. Hansen, C. H., & Krygowski, W. (1994). Arousal-augmented priming effects: Rock music videos and sex object schemas. Communication Research, 21, 24–47. Hansen, C. H., & Hansen, R. (1988). How rock music videos can change what is seen when boy meets girl: Priming stereotypic appraisal of social interactions. Sex Roles, 5, 287–316. Harris, R.J. (2004). A cognitive psychology of mass communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hatoum, I.J., & Belle, D. (2004). Mags and abs: Media consumption and bodily concerns in Men. Sex Roles, 7, 397- 407. Hawkins, R.P., & Pingree, S. (1982). Television’s influence on constructions of social reality. In D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, & J. Lazar (Eds.), Television and behavior: Ten years of scientific progress and implications for the eighties (Vol. 2, pp. 224-247). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Hebb, D.O. (1949). Organization of behavior. New York: Wiley. Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S.S., & Reich, D.A. (2006). The brief sexual attitudes scale. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 76-86.

207

Hetsroni, A. (2008). Dependency and adolescents’ perceived usefulness of information on sexuality: A cross-cultural comparison of interpersonal sources, professional sources and the mass media. Communication Reports, 21, 14-32.

Higgins, E.T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E.T. Higgins & A.W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133-168). New York: The Guilford Press.

Higgins, E.T., Bargh, J.A., & Lombardi, W. (1985). Nature of priming effects on categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 59-69.

Higgins, E.T., & King, G. (1981). Accessibility of social constructs: Information- processing consequences of individual and contextual variability. In N. Cantor & J.F. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interaction (69-121). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hovland, C., & & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650.

Howell, D.C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury. Huesmann, L.R. (1986). Psychological processes promoting the relation between exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior by the viewer. Journal of Social Issues, 42, 125-139. Huesmann, L. R. (1998). The role of social information processing and cognitive schema in the acquisition and maintenance of habitual aggressive behavior (pp. 73-109). In R. G. Geen & E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Human aggression: Theories, research, and implications for policy. New York: Academic Press. Huesmann, L.R., Lagerspetz, K., & Eron, L.D. (1984). Intervening variables in the TV violence-aggression relation: Evidence from two countries. Developmental Psychology, 20, 746-775. Huston, A. C., Donnerstein, E., Fairchild, H., Feshbach, N. C., Katz, P. A., Murray, J. P., et al. (1992). Big world, small screen. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Huston, A. C., Wartella, E., & Donnerstein, E. (1998). Measuring the effects of sexual content in the media. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D.R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

208

Jo, E., & Berkowitz, L. (1994). A priming effect analysis of media influences: An update. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 43-60). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Johnson, J., Adams, M. S., Ashburn, L., & Reed, W. (1995). Differential gender effects of exposure to rap music on African American adolescents’ acceptance of teen dating violence. Sex Roles, 33, 597–605. Johnson, P.J., McCreary, D.R., & Mills, J.S. (2007). Effects of exposure to objectified male and female media images on men’s psychological well-being. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8, 95-102. Johnston, J., & Taylor, J. (2008). Feminist consumerism and fat activists: A comparative study of grassroots activism and the Dove Real Beauty campaign. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 33, 941-966. Jones, S. (2010). Horrorporn/Pornhorror. In Attwood, F. (Ed.), Porn.com: Making sense of online pornography (pp. 123-137). New York: Peter Lang. Josephson, W.L. (1987). Television violence and children’s aggression: Testing the priming, social script, and disinhibition predictions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 882-890. Kalyanaraman, S., Steele, J., & Sundar, S.S. (2000). Communicating objectification: Effects of sexually suggestive advertisements. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Acapulco, Mexico. Kalof, L. (1999). The effects of gender and music video imagery on sexual attitudes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 378–385. Kang, M. (1997). The portrayal of women’s images in magazine advertisements: Goffman’s gender analysis revisited. Sex Roles, 37, 979-996. Kelley, K., Dawson, L., & Musialowski, D. M. (1989). Three faces of sexual explicitness: The good, the bad, and the useful. In D. Zillmann & J. Bryant (Eds.), Pornography. Research advances and policy considerations (pp. 57–91). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kenrick, D.T., & Gutierres, S.E. (1980). Contrast effects and judgments of physical attractiveness: When beauty becomes a social problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 131-140. Kenrick, D.T., Gutierres, S.E., & Goldberg, L.L. (1989). Influence of popular erotica on judgments of strangers and mates. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 159-167.

209

Keppel, G. (1973). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kiousis, S., & McDevitt, M. (2008). Agenda setting in civic development. Communication Research, 35, 481-502. Kisielius, J., & Sternthal, B. (1986). Examining the vividness controversy: An availability-valence interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 418-431. Kistler, M.E., & Lee, M.J. (2010). Does exposure to sexual hip-hop music videos influence the sexual attitudes of college students? Mass Communication and Society, 13, 67-86. Knoth, R., Boyd, K., & Singer, B. (1988). Empirical tests of sexual selection theory: Predictions of sex differences in onset, intensity, and time course of sexual arousal. Journal of Sex Research, 24, 73-89. Krassas, N.R., Blauwkamp, J.M., & Wesselink, P. (2001). Boxing Helena and corseting Eunice: Sexual rhetoric in Cosmopolitan and Playboy magazines. Sex Roles, 44, 751-771. Krassas, N.R., Blauwkamp, J.M., & Wesselink, P. (2003). “Master your Johnson”: Sexual rhetoric in Maxim and Stuff magazines. Sexuality & Culture, 7, 98-119. Kunkel, D., Biely, E., Eyal, K., Cope-Farrar, K., Donnerstein, E., & Fandrich, R. (2003). Sex on TV 3: A biennial report of the Kaiser Family Foundation. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation. Kunkel, D., Farinola, W., Farrar, K., Donnerstein, E., Biely, E., & Zwarun, L. (2002). Deciphering the v-chip: An examination of the television industry’s program rating judgments. Journal of Communication, 52, 112-138. Kunkel, D., & Zwarun, L. (2006). How real is the problem of TV violence? Research and policy perspectives. In N. Dowd, D. Singer, & R. Wilson (Eds.), Handbook of children, culture, and violence (pp. 203–224). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lambiase, J.L. (2003). Sex—online and in Internet advertising. In T. Reichert & J. Lambiase (Eds.), Sex in advertising: Perspectives on the erotic appeal (pp. 247- 269). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lambiase, J.L. (2007). Promoting sexy images: Case study scrutinizes Maxim’s cover formula for building quick circulation and challenging competitors. Journal of Promotion Management, 13, 111-125. Lampman, C., Rolfe-Maloney, B., David, E.J., Yan, M., McCermott, N., Winters, S., et al. (2002). Messages about sex in the workplace: A content analysis of primetime television. Sexuality & Culture, 6, 3-21.

210

Lanis, K., & Covell, K. (1995). Images of women in advertisements: Effects on attitudes related to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 32, 639-649. Levant, R.F. (1997). Nonrelational sexuality in men. In R.F. Levant & G.R. Brooks (Eds.), Men and sex (pp. 9-27). New York, NY: Wiley. Levant, R.F., & Brooks, G.R. (1997). Men and the problem of nonrelational sex. In R.F. Levant & G.R. Brooks (Eds.), Men and sex (pp. 1-8). New York, NY: Wiley. Lindner, K. (2004). Images of women in general interest and fashion advertisements from 1955 to 2002. Sex Roles, 51, 409-421. Linz, D. (1985). Sexual violence in the media: Effects on male viewers and implications for society. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Linz, D., Blumenthal, E., Donnerstein, E., Kunkel, D., Shafer, B.J., & Lichtenstein, A. (2000). Testing legal assumptions regarding the effects of dancer nudity and proximity to patron on erotic expression. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 507-533. Linz, D., Donnerstein, E. & Penrod, S. (1988). Effects of long-term exposure to violent and sexually degrading depictions of women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 758-768. Linz, D. & Malamuth, N.M. (1993). Communication Concepts 5: Pornography. In S. Chaffee (Ed.) Communication Concepts Series. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Littlejohn, S.W. (1996). Theories of human communication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Lo, V., & Wei, R. (2005). Exposure to internet pornography and Taiwanese adolescents’ sexual attitudes and behavior. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49, 221-237. Lusterman, D. (1997). Repetitive infidelity, womanizing, and Don Juanism. In R.F. Levant & G.R. Brooks (Eds.), Men and sex (pp. 84-99). New York, NY: Wiley. Machia, M., & Lamb, S. (2009). Effects of magazine ads portraying adult women as sexy little girls. Journal of Media Psychology, 21, 15-24. MacKay, N. J. & Covell, K. (1997). The impact of women in advertisements on attitudes toward women. Sex Roles, 36, 573–583. Malamuth, N.M. (1996). Sexually explicit media, gender differences, and evolutionary theory. Journal of Communication, 46, 8-31. Malamuth, N.M., & Billings, V. (1986). The functions and effects of pornography: Sexual communication vs. the feminist models in light of research findings. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Perspectives on media effects (pp. 83-108). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

211

Malamuth, N.M., & Centi, J. (1986). Repeated exposure to violent and nonviolent pornography: Likelihood of raping ratings and laboratory aggression against women. Aggressive Behavior, 12, 129-137. Malamuth, N.M., & Check, J. (1980). Penile tumescence and perceptual responses to rape as a function of victim’s perceived reactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1980, 528-547. Malamuth, N.M., & Check, J. (1981). The effects of mass media exposure on acceptance of violence against women: A field experiment. Journal of Research in Personality, 15, 436-446. Malamuth, N.M., & Check, J. (1985). The effects of aggressive pornography on beliefs in rape myths: Individual differences. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 299- 320. Malamuth, N.M., Haber, S., Feshbach, S. (1980). Testing hypotheses regarding rape: Exposure to sexual violence, sex differences, and the “normality” of rapists. Journal of Research in Personality, 14, 121-137. Malamuth, N. M., & Impett, E. A. (2001). Research on sex in the media. What do we know about effects on children and adolescents? In D. G. Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 269–287). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Malamuth, N.M., & Spinner, B. (1980). A longitudinal content analysis of sexual violence in the best-selling erotic magazines. The Journal of Sex Research, 17, 226-237. Mastro, D., Behm-Morawitz, E., & Ortiz, M. (2007). The cultivation of social perceptions of Latinos: A mental models approach. Media Psychology, 9, 1-19. Mazur, M.A., & Emmers-Sommer, T.M. (2002). The effect of movie portrayals on audience attitudes about nontraditional families and sexual orientation. Journal of Homosexuality, 44, 157-178. McGill, A., & Anand, P. (1989). The effect of vivid attributes on the evaluation of alternatives: The role of differential attention and cognitive elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 188-196. McKenzie-Mohr, D., & Zanna, M.P. (1990). Treating women as sexual objects: Look to the (gender schematic) male who has viewed pornography. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 296-308. Mehta, M.D. (2001). Pornography in Usenet: A study of 9,800 randomly selected images. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4, 695-703.

212

Mehta, M.D., & Plaza, D. (1997). Content analysis of pornographic images available on the Internet. The Information Society, 13, 153-161. Milburn, M., Mather, R., & Conrad, S. (2000). The effects of viewing R-rated movie scenes that objectify women on perceptions of date rape. Sex Roles, 43, 645-664. Moradi, B., & Huang, Y. (2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women: A decade of advances and future directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 377-398. Mundorf, N., Allen, M., D’Alessio, D., & Emmers-Sommer, T. (2007). Effects of sexually explicit media. In R.W. Preiss, B.M. Gayle, N. Burrell, M. Allen, & J. Bryant (Eds.), Mass media effects research (pp. 181-198). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. Munsey, C. (2006). Emerging adults: The in-between age. Monitor on Psychology, 37, 68. Neely, J.H. (1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 106, 225-254. Newton, R.R., & Rudestam, K.E. (1999). Your statistical consultant. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nielsen. (2009, June). How teens use media: A Nielsen report on the myths and realities of ten media trends. Retrieved on September 7, 2010 from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/reports/nielsen_howteensusemedia_ june09.pdf Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inferences: Strategies and shortcomings of human judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Okrent, D. (1999, May 10). Raising our kids online. Time, pp. 34-39. Padgett, V., Brislin-Slutz, J., & Neal, J. (1989). Pornography, erotica, and attitudes toward women: The effects of repeated exposure. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 479-491. Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 21, 516-546. Parmentier, F.B.R. (2008). Towards a cognitive model of distraction by auditory novelty: The role of involuntary attention capture and semantic processing. Cognition, 109, 345-362.

213

Paul, B. (2009). Predicting internet pornography use and arousal: The role of individual differences. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 344-357. Paul, B., & Linz, D. (2008). The effects of exposure to virtual child pornography on viewer cognitions and attitudes toward deviant sexual behavior. Communication Research, 35, 3-38. Pember, D.R., & Calvert, C. (2011). Mass media law. NY: McGraw Hill. Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P.M. (2006). Adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit material on the Internet. Communication Research, 33, 178-204. Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P.M. (2007). Adolescents’ exposure to a sexualized media environment and their notions of women as sex objects. Sex Roles, 56, 381-395. Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P.M. (2008). Adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit internet material, sexual uncertainty, and attitudes toward uncommitted sexual exploration: Is there a link? Communication Research, 35, 579-601. Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P.M. (2009a). Adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit internet material and sexual satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Human Communication Research, 35, 171-194. Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P.M. (2009b). Adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit internet material and notions of women as sex objects: Assessing causality and underlying processes. Journal of Communication, 59, 407-433. Petty, R.E., Rucker, D.D., Bizer, G.Y., Cacioppo, J.T. (2004). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In R.H. Gass & J.S. Seiter (Eds.), Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (pp. 65-89). Boston: Pearson Education. Plous, S., & Neptune, D. (1997). Racial and gender biases in magazine advertising. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 627-644. Ramsey, G.V. (1943a). The sex information of younger boys. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 13, 247-249.

Ramsey, G.V. (1943b). The sexual development of boys. American Journal of Psychology, 56, 217-221.

Reichert, T. (2003). The prevalence of sexual imagery in ads targeted to young adults. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 37, 403-412. Reichart, T., & Carpenter, C. (2004). An update on sex in magazine advertising: 1983 to 2003. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 823-837.

214

Reichart, T., Lambiase, J., Morgan, S., Carstarphen, M., & Zavoina,S. (1999). Cheesecake and Beefcake: No matter how you slice it, sexual explicitness in advertising continues to increase. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76, 7-20. Reid, A.K. (2011). Validity and reliability. Retrieved on September 4, 2011 from http://webs.wofford.edu/reidak/Psych%20200/Reliability%20and%20validity.pdf Riddle, K. (2010). Always on my mind: Exploring how frequent, recent, and vivid television portrayals are used in the formation of social reality judgments. Media Psychology, 13, 155-179.

Rideout, V.J., Foehr, U.G., & Roberts, D.F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8-to-18 year olds. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.

Robinson, T.N., Chen, H.L., & Killen, J.D. (1998). Television and music video exposure and risk of adolescent alcohol use. Pediatrics, 102, 1-6.

Roskos-Ewoldsen, D.R., Klinger, M.R., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, B. (2007). Media priming: A meta-analysis. In R.W. Preiss, B.M. Gayle, N. Burrell, M. Allen, & J. Bryant (Eds.), Mass media effects research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 53-80). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Roskos-Ewoldsen, D.R., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, B. (2009). Current research in media priming. In R.L. Nabi & M.B. Oliver (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of media processing and effects (pp. 177-192). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Roskos-Ewoldsen, D.R., Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., & Carpentier, F. (2002). Media priming: A synthesis. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2ncd ed., pp. 97-120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Roskos-Ewoldsen, D.R., Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., & Carpentier, F. (2009). Media priming: An updated synthesis. In J. Bryant & M.B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 74-93). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Rubin, A.M. (2002). The uses-and-gratifications perspective on media effects. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 525-548). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rudman, L.A., & Borgida, E. (1995). The afterglow of construct accessibility: The behavioral consequences of priming men to view women as sexual objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 493-517. Rudman, W.J., & Hagiwara, A.F. (1992). Sexual exploitation in advertising health and wellness products. Women & Health, 18, 77-89.

215

Rudman, W.J., & Verdi, P. (1993). Exploitation: Comparing sexual and violent imagery of females and males in advertising. Women & Health, 20, 1-14. Sadler, J.Z., Jotterand, F., Craddock, S., & Inrig, S. (2009). Can medicalization be good? Situating medicalization within bioethics. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 30, 411-425. Salazar, L.F., Fleischauer, P.J., Bernhardt, J.M., & DiClemente, R.J. (2008). Sexually explicit content viewed by teens on the Internet. In A.B. Jordan, D. Kunkel, J. Manganello, & M. Fishbein (Eds.), Media messages and public health (pp. 116- 136). New York, NY: Routledge. Schuster, M. A., Bell, R. M., Peterson, L.P., & Kanouse, D. E. (1996). Communication between adolescents and physicians about sexual behavior and risk prevention. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 150, 906-913. Scott, J.E., & Cuvelier, S.J. (1987). Sexual violence in Playboy magazine: A longitudinal content analysis. The Journal of Sex Research, 23, 534-539. Seidman, S.A. (1992). An investigation of sex-role stereotyping in music videos. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 36, 209-216. Shedler, J., & Manis, M. (1986). Can the availability heuristic explain vividness effects? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 26-36. Singer, J.D., & Willett, J.B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis. New York: Oxford Press. Shrum, L. J., (2009). Media consumption and perceptions of social reality: Effects and underlying processes. In J. Bryant & M.B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 50-73). New York: Psychology Press. Soley, L.C., & Kurzbard, G. (1986). Sex in advertising: A comparison of 1964 and 1984 magazine advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 15, 46-64. Soley, L.C., & Reid, L.N. (1988). Taking it off: Are models in magazine ads wearing less? Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 65, 960-966. Sommers-Flanagan, R., Sommers-Flanagan, J., & Davis, B. (1993). What’s happening on music television? A gender role content analysis. Sex Roles, 28, 745–753. Snyder, L.B. (2007). Meta-analyses of mediated health campaigns. In R.W. Preiss, B.M. Gayle, N. Burrell, M. Allen, & J. Bryant (Eds.), Mass media effects research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 327-344). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Sullivan, G.L., & O’Connor, P.J. (1988). Women’s role portrayals in magazine advertising: 1958-1983. Sex Roles, 18, 181-188.

216

Stock, W. (1997). Sex as commodity: Men and the sex industry. In R.F. Levant & G.R. Brooks (Eds.), Men and sex (pp. 100-132). New York, NY: Wiley. Stoltenberg, J. (1989). Refusing to be a man. New York, NY: Penguin. Strouse, J. S., Goodwin, M. P., & Roscoe, B. (1994). Correlates of attitudes toward sexual harassment among early adolescents. Sex Roles, 31, 559–577. Sutton, M. J., Brown, J., Wilson, K. M., & Klein, J. D. (2002). Shaking the tree of knowledge for forbidden fruit: Where adolescents learn about sexuality and contraception. In J. Brown, J. R. Steele, & K. Walsh-Childers (Eds.), Sexual teens, sexual media (pp. 1–24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Taylor, L.D. (2005a). All for him: Articles about sex in American Lad Magazines. Sex Roles, 3, 153-163. Taylor, L. D. (2005b). Effects of visual and verbal sexual television content and perceived realism on attitudes and beliefs. Journal of Sex Research, 42, 130-137. Taylor, L.D. (2006). College men, their magazines, and sex. Sex Roles, 55, 693-702. Taylor, S.E., & Thompson, S.C. (1982). Stalking the elusive vividness effect. Psychological Review, 89, 155-181. Thornburgh, D., & Lin, H.S. (2002). Youth, pornography, and the Internet. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232. vanDijk, T.A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage. Vincent, R. C., Davis, D. K., & Boruszkowski, L. A. (1987). Sexism on MTV: The portrayal of women in rock videos. Journalism Quarterly, 64, 750–755, 941. Ward, L. M. (1995). Talking about sex: Common themes about sexuality in the primetime television programs children and adolescents view most. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 24, 595–615. Ward, L. M. (2002). Does television exposure affect emerging adults’ attitudes and assumptions about sexual relationships? Correlational and experimental confirmation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 1–15. Ward, L.M. (2003). Understanding the role of the entertainment media in the sexual socialization of American youth: A review of empirical research. Developmental Review, 23, 347-388.

217

Ward, L.M., & Friedman, K. (2006). Using TV as a guide: Associations between television viewing and adolescents’ sexual attitudes and behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 133-156. Ward, L.M., Hansbrough, E., & Walker, E. (2005). Contributions of music video exposure to black adolescents’ gender and sexual schemas. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20, 143-166. Ward, L.M., Merriwether, A., Caruthers, A. (2006). Breasts are for men: Media, masculinity ideologies, and men’s beliefs about women’s bodies. Sex Roles, 55, 703-714. Ward, L. M., & Rivadeneyra, R. (1999). Contributions of entertainment television to adolescents’ sexual attitudes and expectations: The role of viewing amount versus viewer involvement. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 237–249. Weaver, J. B., III, Masland, J. L., & Zillmann, D. (1984). Effect of erotica on young men's aesthetic perception of their female sexual partners. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 58, 929-930. Weisman, J. (2009, June 24). Layoffs at MTV as network revamps. Daily Variety. Retrieved on September 11, 2010 from LexisNexis.com. Weisz, M. G., & Earls, C. M. (1995). The effects of exposure to filmed sexual violence on attitudes toward rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 71-84. Wingood, G. M., DiClemente, R. J., Bernhardt, J. M., Harrington, K., Davies, S. L., Robillard, A., & Hook, E. W. (2003). A prospective study of exposure to rap music videos and African American female adolescents’ health. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 437- 439. Winick, C. (1985). A content analysis of sexually explicit magazines sold in an adult bookstore. The Journal of Sex Research, 21, 206-210. Wolak, J, Mitchell, K., & Finkelhor, D. (2007). Pediatrics, 119, 247-257. Woo, H., & Kim, Y. (2003). Modern gladiators: A content analysis of televised wrestling. Mass Communication & Society, 6, 361-378. Wright, P.J. (in press). U.S. males and pornography, 1973-2010: Consumption, predictors, correlates. The Journal of Sex Research. Wright, P.J. (2008). Sexual coaddiction: A new context for inconsistent nurturing as control theory. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 15, 1-13. Wright, P. J. (2009). Father-child sexual communication in the United States: A review and synthesis. Journal of Family Communication, 4, 1-18.

218

Wright, P.J. (2011). Mass media effects on youth sexual behavior: Assessing the claim for causality. Communication Yearbook, 35, 343-386. Wright, P.J., Donnerstein, E., & Malamuth, N.M. (2011). Research on sex in the media: What do we know about effects on children and adolescents? In D. G. Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 273-302). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wyer, R.S., Bodenhausen, G.V., & Gorman, T.F. (1985). Cognitive mediators of reactions to rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 324-338. Wyer, R.S., & Carlston, D.E. (1979). Social cognition, inference, and attribution. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Wyer, R.S., & Radvansky, G.A. (1999). The comprehension and validation of social information. Psychological Review, 106, 89-118. Wyer, R.W., & Srull, T.K. (1980). The processing of social stimulus information: A conceptual integration. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Person memory: The cognitive basis of social perception (pp. 227-300). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Ybarra, M.L., Mitchell, K., Hamburger, M., Diener-West, M., & Leaf, P.J. (2011). X- rated material and perpetration of sexually aggressive behavior among children and adolescents: Is there a link? Aggressive Behavior, 37, 1-18. Zillmann, D. (1999). Exemplification theory: Judging the whole by some of its parts. Media Psychology, 1, 69-94. Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1982). Pornography, sexual callousness, and the trivialization of rape. Journal of Communication, 32, 10-21. Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1988). Effects of prolonged consumption of pornography on family values. Journal of Family Issues, 4, 518-544. Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1988). Pornography’s impact on sexual satisfaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, pp. 438-453. Zhang, Y. (2009). Controversial rap themes, gender portrayals and skin tone distortion: A content analysis of rap music videos. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53, 134-156. Zurbriggen, E.L., Collins, R.L., Lamb, S., Roberts, T., Tolman, D.L., Ward, M.L., Blake, J. (2007). Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

219

Zurbriggen, E.L., & Morgan, E.M. (2006). Who wants to marry a millionaire? Reality dating television programs, attitudes towards sex, and sexual behaviors. Sex Roles, 54, 1- 17.