https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619896273 Psychological Science 1–10 © The Author(s) 2020 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0956797619896273 www.psychologicalscience.org/PS ASSOCIATION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Preregistered Direct Replication Objectification has been widely investigated in social psychology since the publication of the influential objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). It is defined as the treatment of a human being as an object (Nussbaum, 1995) and has been mainly applied to the sexual sphere (i.e., sexual objectification), in which women are often reduced to sexual objects (Bartky, 1990). Objectification theory suggests that because of repeated exposure to objectifying portrayals of women in the media, culture, and education, women internalize such a view of themselves—that is, they self-objectify (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). In numerous studies, self-objectification has been claimed to be responsible for a large array of negative consequences at an individual level (e.g., eating disor- ders, decreased self-esteem, depressive symptoms; for a review, see Moradi & Huang, 2008). Adopting a collective perspective, some scholars argued that self-objectification might additionally be deleterious for the status of women as a group (Calogero, 2013). Indeed, women who adopt an objectifying view of themselves may “perpetuate their own disadvantaged state” (Calogero, 2013, p. 313). The explanation for such maintenance of the status quo relies on system-justification theory (Jost & Kay, 2005). This theory suggests that members of a disadvantaged group not only comply with the dominant view but also some- times internalize it and consider it to be fair, balanced, and legitimate (Jost & Kay, 2005). Integrating objectifica- tion in the system-justification perspective, Calogero pro- posed that self-objectified women tend to support the patriarchal status quo (i.e., gender-specific system 896273PSS XX X 10.1177/0956797619896273De Wilde et al.Preregistered Direct Replications of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr4-0956797619896273">Calogero’s (2013)</xref> Study research-article 2020 Corresponding Author: Matthias De Wilde, Université Catholique de Louvain, Place Cardinal Mercier, 10, L3.05.01, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium E-mail: matthias.dewilde@uclouvain.be Two Preregistered Direct Replications of “Objects Don’t Object: Evidence That Self-Objectification Disrupts Women’s Social Activism” Matthias De Wilde 1 , Annalisa Casini 1 , Philippe Bernard 2 , Robin Wollast 2 , Olivier Klein 2 , and Stéphanie Demoulin 1 1 Department of Social Psychology, Université Catholique de Louvain, and 2 Department of Social Psychology, Université Libre de Bruxelles Abstract Self-objectification has been claimed to induce numerous detrimental consequences for women at the individual level (e.g., sexual dysfunction, depression, eating disorders). Additionally, at the collective level, it has been proposed that self-objectified women might themselves contribute to the maintenance of the patriarchal status quo, for instance, by participating less in collective action. In 2013, Calogero found a negative link between self-objectification and collective action, which was mediated by the adoption of gender-specific system justification. Here, we report two preregistered direct replications (PDRs) of Calogero’s original study. We conducted these PDRs after three failures to replicate the positive relation between self-objectification and gender-specific system-justification belief in correlational studies. Results of the two PDRs, in which we used a Bayesian approach, supported the null hypothesis. This work has important theoretical implications because it challenges the role attributed to self-objectified women in the maintenance of patriarchy. Keywords self-objectification, system justification, reproducibility, mini meta-analysis, open data, open materials, preregistered Received 2/14/19; Revision accepted 10/17/19