Women who are socialized to evaluate themselves primarily by how their bodies appear to others face more than body-image fallout. An emerging literature points to a self-objectification empathy gap—lower empathy and diminished theory-of-mind, the ability to infer others’ thoughts and goals. Across experiments and reviews published from 2014 to 2018, studies report reduced empathic responding toward sexualized targets, colder self-evaluations after objectification, and plausible cognitive mechanisms linking constant body surveillance to impaired mental-state attribution. The evidence is convergent, though causal pathways and effect sizes remain active research questions.

Key Takeaways

– Shows fMRI data from 32 participants linked sexualized female targets to lower empathy signals and reduced activation across core compassion-related brain networks. – Reveals internalization effects: in two studies (N=114; N=62), objectified individuals rated themselves less warm, competent, moral, and human. – Demonstrates 2014 clinical review linked self-objectification to depression, body shame, attention disruption, and poorer well-being across multiple samples with consistent associations. – Indicates 2018 systematic review across dozens of studies connected trait self-objectification to lower social warmth and urged testing of theory-of-mind outcomes. – Suggests shifting attention from bodies to minds can restore mental-state attribution; a 2017 review recommends targeted empathy interventions in objectifying contexts.

How the evidence explains the self-objectification empathy gap

Neuroscience work has shown that when observers encounter sexualized women, empathic responses fall. In a February 2018 Cortex paper using fMRI, 32 participants completed a ball‑tossing task while viewing women depicted either as sexualized or personalized; sexualized targets elicited significantly reduced empathy and lower activation in empathy-related brain regions, suggesting a measurable dampening of emotional sharing in objectifying contexts [1].

These neural results matter for theory-of-mind because empathy and mentalizing overlap and interact. When the brain prioritizes surface features—like exposed body parts—over cues to mental states, it can blunt the automatic inference that “this person has thoughts and feelings.” The fMRI pattern indicates that visual emphasis on bodies shifts attention away from internal states, a precondition for weaker perspective-taking.

Although the fMRI study examined observers’ responses to targets, it clarifies one half of the loop: a culture that sexualizes women can cultivate a habit of processing people as bodies. When that habit is internalized, the same perceptual bias can be turned inward, competing with the cognitive resources needed for mind reading and empathic engagement in everyday interactions.

Internalizing objectification undermines self-view and social cognition

A 2017 paper in the British Journal of Social Psychology tested what happens when individuals internalize objectification. In two studies (Study 1 N=114; Study 2 N=62), participants who were objectified came to see themselves as less warm, less competent, less moral, and less human—an erosion in perceived humanity that directly undermines mind attribution to the self and, by extension, empathic reciprocity [2].

This pattern matters for interpersonal dynamics. If someone comes to evaluate herself mainly in terms of appearance, she may anticipate being treated as a body, not a mind. Anticipated dehumanization can lead to defensive self-focus, reduced perspective-taking, and curbed prosocial effort—behaviors that look like lower empathy even if the underlying capacity is intact.

Reduced perceived warmth and competence also predict worse social outcomes. People who feel less human often report interpersonal withdrawal and lower trust. In practical terms, that can translate into fewer opportunities to practice perspective-taking and less motivation to engage others’ minds—both of which can gradually depress theory-of-mind performance.

From body surveillance to reduced theory-of-mind: plausible mechanisms

Daily body surveillance—monitoring posture, clothing, angles, and perceived flaws—consumes limited attentional bandwidth. That attentional load competes with social-cognitive processing, which requires holding others’ beliefs and goals in working memory. Under chronic surveillance, people may default to surface cues, skipping deeper mental-state inference to conserve resources.

A second pathway is anxiety and shame. Self-objectification is robustly tied to body shame and evaluative anxiety, which elevate self-focused rumination. Rumination narrows attention and reduces flexibility in perspective-taking, making it harder to shift into another person’s viewpoint during complex social exchanges.

A 2017 review in Social and Personality Psychology Compass framed objectification as encouraging a mind–body split: focusing on bodies reduces attention to mental states, “stripping” targets of human attributes. Conceptually, that shift can occur both when viewing others and when viewing oneself, pointing to reversible deficits in mental-state attribution as attention is redirected from minds to bodies [5].

How large and how robust are the effects? Samples, tasks, and limits

The imaging evidence to date uses relatively small samples by neuroimaging standards (e.g., N=32) but employs well-validated social exclusion and empathy paradigms. Smaller N means uncertainty about precise effect sizes, yet the direction of effect—reduced empathic responding to sexualized targets—has proven consistent across tasks emphasizing bodily salience.

Behavioral studies capture the other side of the coin with moderate samples (N=114; N=62) and convergent measures of perceived warmth, competence, morality, and humanity. While these outcomes are not direct empathy tests, they are well-known predictors of perspective-taking and prosocial intent. Together, the neurological and behavioral strands triangulate on a common mechanism: privileging bodies reduces mental-state focus.

Caution is warranted. Experimental manipulations often induce short-term objectification; long-term self-objectification accrues over years. Cross-sectional designs cannot cleanly separate cause from effect. Future work should prioritize longitudinal and preregistered studies that track whether sustained reductions in body surveillance produce measurable gains on standardized theory-of-mind tasks.

Practical consequences for schools, clinics, and platforms

In clinical settings, recognizing self-objectification as a transdiagnostic risk factor can inform treatment planning. An integrative 2014 review tied self-objectification to depression, body shame, attention disruption, and poorer well-being, suggesting that interventions which reduce body surveillance may yield downstream benefits for social cognition and empathic functioning [4].

Educational programs can shift classroom norms away from policing appearance and toward valuing ideas and collaboration. Evidence-based exercises—such as structured perspective-taking, narrative writing that centers internal states, and peer-feedback protocols that reward mental-state language—may counteract the implicit message that bodies matter more than minds.

Digital platforms also have leverage. Interface choices that algorithmically amplify sexualized imagery can nudge attention toward bodies. Conversely, design choices that elevate text, context, and expertise—profiles showcasing achievements, recommendations that weight substantive contributions—can rebalance the signal toward minds. Even small changes in salience can scale to population-level effects when millions of users are exposed daily.

Measuring self-objectification empathy in labs and daily life

Quantifying this link requires both experimental and ecological measures. In the lab, researchers can manipulate body salience and record shifts in empathy proxies: helping choices, time spent attending to others’ statements, or accuracy on belief-inference tasks. In the field, smartphone-based experience sampling can track body surveillance frequency alongside daily perspective-taking successes and failures.

Biobehavioral indicators add precision. Pupillometry and gaze-tracking can index attention to faces versus bodies; EEG or fMRI can track changes in networks supporting affect sharing and mentalizing. Combining these with diary measures of body monitoring can reveal whether day-to-day reductions in surveillance predict measurable gains in theory-of-mind performance.

Importantly, measurement must reflect diversity. Cultural norms around dress and body evaluation vary widely; so do age-related concerns. Studies should be adequately powered to test moderation by gender identity, ethnicity, and media exposure, avoiding one-size-fits-all claims about how objectification shapes empathy.

What we still need to know about the self-objectification empathy link

A systematic review published October 1, 2018 synthesized dozens of studies on trait self-objectification, finding consistent ties to lower social warmth and increased self-focus—and explicitly called for targeted tests of theory-of-mind and interpersonal empathy outcomes to close evidence gaps [3].

Key next steps include randomized trials that reduce body surveillance—through mindfulness, compassion training, or media literacy—and test pre-registered outcomes on standardized mentalizing tasks. If improvements in perspective-taking follow reductions in self-objectification, that would strengthen causal claims and clarify which interventions have the biggest payoff.

Policy also matters. Advertising standards, school dress codes, and creator guidelines on social platforms transmit norms about what counts as valuable. Tracking policy changes alongside population-level indicators of empathic climate—bullying rates, prosocial volunteering, or linguistic markers of mental-state talk—could reveal whether de-emphasizing objectification yields measurable social gains.

The bottom line on the self-objectification empathy gap

The core pattern is consistent across methods and samples: when attention locks onto bodies—others’ or one’s own—signals of empathy and mind attribution weaken. Brain imaging links sexualization to reduced empathic activation; behavioral studies show self-humanization declines after objectification; reviews warn of clinical and social-cognition costs.

While science still needs larger, longitudinal, and intervention studies, practical steps are clear. Shift salience from bodies to minds, train perspective-taking, and design environments that reward mental-state language. Those changes, repeated across classrooms, clinics, workplaces, and platforms, can help close the self-objectification empathy gap.

Sources:

[1] Cortex – Reduced empathic responses for sexually objectified women: An fMRI investigation: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010945217304045

[2] British Journal of Social Psychology – Internalizing objectification: Objectified individuals see themselves as less warm, competent, moral, and human: https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12188 [3] Personality and Individual Differences – A systematic review of the relationship between trait self-objectification and personality traits: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886918302629″ target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow noopener noreferrer”>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886918302629

[4] Clinical Psychology Review – Self‑objectification and depression: an integrative systematic review: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25282146/ [5] Social and Personality Psychology Compass – Objectification of people and thoughts: An attitude change perspective: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28188637/

Image generated by DALL-E 3