Dr. Arnaud Wisman and his team at the University of Kent School of Psychology have upended a widely held academic belief about sexual objectification—one that has shaped prevention efforts across the Western world for years. Rather than being a calculated power play, their new research published in the Journal of Sex Research reveals that sexual objectification in men is partly driven by something far more fundamental: sexual arousal itself, regardless of personality type.
This finding matters deeply because objectification—the reduction of a person to their sexual function while erasing their humanity—carries measurable psychological and physical harm. People who experience it report increased anger, diminished self-esteem, eating disorders, depression, and even reduced empathy toward rape victims in legal settings. If we misunderstand why objectification happens, our efforts to prevent it will inevitably miss their mark.
For decades, the prevailing academic model held that sexual objectification was primarily a power-driven behavior, something certain "types" of men used to maintain control and dominance. This theory spawned what Wisman calls "one size fits all" interventions focused on educating men about toxic masculinity and challenging attitudes associated with sexual violence. But Wisman's research suggests this model is incomplete.
His team examined whether sexual arousal itself triggered objectification, and if so, whether it varied based on personality. They tested men with high and low drives for sexual variety, and those high and low in antisocial personality traits. The results were striking: sexual arousal increased objectification across all groups. As Wisman explains, "The same effect was found for men with a high or low drive for sexual variety and those high or low in antisocial personality traits. This pushes back on the idea that 'only X type of man objectifies women.'"
Crucially, the researchers didn't stop there. They tested whether empathy-based interventions could interrupt this arousal-objectification link. They asked participants to reflect on a challenging situation a woman or girl had faced, then measured whether this reduced objectification when they were aroused. It did—though the effect varied depending on personality traits, particularly empathy levels.
This distinction proved essential. While the arousal-objectification link appears to have biological roots, empathy-building interventions showed genuine promise for those with the capacity to empathize. For individuals characterized by lower empathy, however, the same approaches proved ineffective or even counterproductive.
The implications reshape how we think about prevention. Generic "toxic masculinity" campaigns that assume all men objectify for the same reasons miss both the biology and the psychology. Instead, Wisman and his team propose interventions that cultivate empathy where it's possible, strengthen emotional regulation skills, and help people understand how arousal shapes perception—approaches far more tailored to individual variation than blanket messages about power and control.
"It is important to note, however, that while our research suggests that sexual objectification is innate to an extent, it does not imply that such behavior is morally acceptable or desirable," Wisman emphasizes. Understanding the mechanism isn't endorsement. It's precision—the foundation of solutions that actually work.