Discussion
Consistent with objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) and paralleling evidence from mostly European American women (Fredrickson et al., 1998; Noll & Fredrickson, 1998; Tiggemann & Lynch, 2001; Tiggemann & Slater, 2001), African American women’s surveillance of their own body shape and size predicted body shame. This pattern extended to skin tone for African American women, for whom higher levels of skin tone-specific monitoring were associated with general body shame as well as targeted skin-tone dissatisfaction. Skin-tone monitoring and body shape and size monitoring as well as skin-tone dissatisfaction and body shame each overlapped by only about 7%. This distinctiveness of the two predictors as well as the two criterion variables suggests that measures of skin tone and shape and size capture different aspects of African American women’s body images. Furthermore, the interrelationships of these measures indicate that a richer understanding of African American women’s body issues is captured when shape and size are included with skin-tone assessments.
However, there is more going on here than the simple addition of skin tone to a model of body objectification previously explored with mostly European American samples. First, the usual objectification model (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) posits that body surveillance, rooted in societal pressures regarding body shape and size, leads to internalized self-objectification, which fosters body shame. Although self-objectification has been shown to mediate the relationship between body monitoring and shame with mainly European American participants (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998), such mediation was not evident among African American women (even with the directly comparable, typically tested model that includes only OBCS Surveillance, SOQ, and OBCS Body Shame without the skin-tone-specific material; complete results are available from the second author). This prior pattern was disrupted by the nonsignificant relationship between self-objectification and body shame. Second, the expected parallel pattern of mediation did not emerge for the skin-tone paths, either; there was an unexpected nonsignificant link between self-objectification and skin-tone dissatisfaction.
The most obvious explanation for these deviations from objectification theory’s predictions is that the validity of the Self-Objectification Questionnaire as a measure of internalized surveillance for African American women is questionable. However, the SOQ’s mean and standard deviation fall within the same range as that of other samples (Noll, 1996; Noll & Fredrickson, 1998; Tiggemann & Slater, 2001), and its scores correlate with the Surveillance subscale of the OBCS. In addition, “coloring” (e.g., “skin tone”) is one of the ranked attributes on the SOQ. Rather, the present data suggest that although internalization (i.e., self-objectification) itself was associated with surveillance, body dissatisfaction was predicted only by surveillance directly, without the mediation of internalization. Additional research exploring the role of self-objectification among African American women is warranted and may lead to new insights regarding the processes involved in the objectification model.
One potential limitation of this study is the use of a new measure. The skintone-specific surveillance scale was closely modeled from the items on the Surveillance subscale of the OBCS and appears to be face valid. Preliminary psychometric evidence based on the current sample is encouraging. The instrument demonstrated excellent internal consistency, and evidence of criterion-related validity was indicated by the moderate positive relation in the path model between responses on the skin-tone-specific surveillance scale and the measure of skin-tone dissatisfaction. Finally, as noted previously, the scale appears to be measuring a construct related to but distinct from surveillance of body shape and size.
A somewhat related issue concerns the rather skewed distributions of scores for both measures of skin-tone concerns. These distributions indicate that most participants reported engaging in little habitual monitoring of skin tone and low levels of skin-tone dissatisfaction. This conclusion is reinforced by the generally positive statements participants wrote in response to the open-ended questions that ended our survey. Representative of these sentiments, one women declared, “I feel that my skin color is a gift from God,” and another confided, “I like my skin color, it’s like milk chocolate.”
Yet, negative perceptions of skin tone persisted, typically related to prejudice perceived from others (e.g., “Darker skin always comes in last unless you have incredible persuasion abilities”; “My color or darker wasn’t considered dateable”). This combination of positive self-perceptions with negative stereotyping from others possibly captures some of African American women’s ambivalence about skin tone and their active attempts to resist external objectification, hallmarks of objectification theory itself. Consistent with this speculation, Choate (2005) outlined three factors related to the development of a positive body image in African American women despite pervasive images of the thin ideal presented in the media: less cultural emphasis on a thin ideal such that larger body sizes are viewed as attractive; family support; and support from peers and the community. Additionally, African American women appear to compare themselves to other African American women in the media rather than women of other races (Frisby, 2004), presumably focusing on size and shape but potentially on skin tones as well. More research is needed to gain a better understanding of the factors that promote body-image resilience related to both body shape and size and skin tone for African American women.
Future researchers also may explore several related questions to which our findings do not speak directly. For example, what factors contribute to individual differences in the extent to which African American women habitually monitor their skin tone? Furthermore, does African American women’s habitual skin-tone monitoring derive from sexual objectification in a manner consistent with habitual body monitoring of shape and size, as objectification theory would predict? Finally, what are some potential resistance factors that enable some African American women, in the face of cultural objectification, to prevent or quell the process of self-objectification?
Despite the aforementioned potential limitations and remaining questions, our findings may have important implications for counselors working with African American women clients, particularly those clients presenting with concerns about body-image dissatisfaction. As women of color, African American women may be affected by separate and intertwined racism and sexism. Therefore, practitioners need to be aware of how standards of beauty are both general and unique for African American women rather than simply assuming that body shape and size are the exclusive features on which African American women expect to be evaluated by observers. African American women are not immune to society’s emphasis on body size, and like many women, they may be vulnerable to developing eating disorders (Aruguete et al., 2004; Vander Wal & Thomas, 2004).
We recommend that multiculturally competent counselors be open both to the possibility of traditional body-image concerns and to other types of body dissatisfaction, including skin tone, among African American women. Several issues in addressing skin-tone concerns with African Americans are described below. First, in individual psychotherapy, African American clients and counselors may critically examine the multiple meanings placed on skin tone by society generally and by specific communities with which clients have identified. Careful, empathic exploration of how these messages were learned (e.g., media, family-of-origin) and to what extent they have been internalized may be useful in helping clients to make more conscious decisions about their participation in such systems of meaning-making (Hall, 1995; Harvey, 1995).
Second, group psychotherapy may be a useful intervention to provide African American women the opportunity to share skin color and body image concerns that have been kept secret (Boyd-Franklin, 1991). With careful, culturally sensitive facilitation, both process-oriented groups and groups that are more psychoeducationally oriented may be beneficial. Boyd-Franklin highlighted the importance of confidentiality and establishing trust to allow group members to feel safe disclosing painful feelings and experiences related to their body-image concerns.
A third level of intervention could be aimed at communities (Harvey, 1995). Such interventions might include workshops or discussion groups on college and university campuses, in community agencies, and at institutions (e.g., Black churches) that educate individuals about historical perceptions of African-centered beauty, highlight negative messages conveyed in the contemporary media, and allow for discussion of healthy body image consistent with African American physical features and culture. Practitioners should proceed with sensitivity and seek consultation and training if this is not an area of competence.
A fourth issue to consider carefully in any kind of psychological or educational intervention is the nature of the match between counselor and client. Although ethnic and gender matching may be helpful in creating expectations of support and understanding for clients, simply sharing demographic characteristics does not ensure expertise in working with African American women on these issues. We recommend that counselors of all racial and ethnic backgrounds engage seriously in exploration and self-reflection on their own experiences with and feelings about race and skin tone.
As a final recommendation for education, we suggest that training on body-image concerns within graduate and continuing-education programs be broadened to include culture-specific variables for members of ethnic minority groups. Within-group differences, such as clients’ specific cultural affiliations and identities (e.g., Africana, African American, multiethnic), development statuses of racial or ethnic identity, and acculturation strategies and levels (Landrine & Klonoff, 1994), should be taken into account in any such discussion.
In sum, the present data lead us to conclude that we may need to do more than add skin-tone measures to objectification theory and our thinking about body image. Given the historical and contemporary role of skin tone in the perception of African Americans and other people of color (Hunter, 2002; Maddox & Gray, 2002; Wade & Bielitz, 2005), subjective variables related to skin tone need to be addressed both theoretically and empirically in the body-image literature. More specifically, African American women may be served better by theorists and practitioners who consider issues of skin-tone dissatisfaction in developing models of body dissatisfaction and in counseling involving body image. Such a multiculturally sensitive perspective is consistent with the growing body of scholarship in counseling psychology focusing on the intersections of gender, race, and ethnicity.
Taneisha S. Buchanan
University of Akron
Ann R. Fischer
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
David M. Tokar
University of Akron
Janice D. Yoder
University of Akron
