The effects of maternal modeling and negative familial communication on women's eating attitudes and body image

BEHAVIORTHERAPY32, 443457, 2001

The Effects of Maternal Modeling and Negative Familial Communication on Women's Eating Attitudes and Body Image JESSICA C. KICHLER JANIS H . CROWTHER Kent State University This research examined negative familial communication as a moderator of the relationship between maternal modeling and daughters' eating attitudes and body image after controlling for Body Mass Index (BMI) and family environment. Participants were 103 college-aged women and their mothers. Following informed consent, mothers and daughters completed the demographic questionnaire, the Negative Familial Communication items, the Body Shape Questionnaire (BSQ; Cooper, Taylor, Cooper, & Fairburn, 1987), and the Eating Attitudes Test (EAT; Garner & Garfinkel, 1979). Daughters also completed the Family Environment Scale (FES; Moos & Moos, 1986). Three components comprised the maternal modeling variable: past and present dieting behaviors, body image dissatisfaction, and maladaptive eating attitudes and behaviors. Results indicated that negative familial communication moderated the relationship between maternal modeling and daughters' eating attitudes and body image; the influence of maternal modeling was significant at high levels of negative familial communication but not at low levels of negative familial communication. These results may clarify the equivocal findings with respect to modeling in past research and suggest that negative familial communication should be assessed when examining the role of modeling in the development of eating- and weight-related disturbances.

As increasing attention has focused on the role of the family in the development of eating disorders (EDs), most researchers agree that various familial factors may increase the risk for eating-related psychopathology (Johnson & Connors, 1987; Miller, McChskey-Fawcett, & Irving, 1993; Pike & Rodin, 1991). Fairburn and his associates (Fairburn, Welch, Doll, Davies, & O'Conner, 1997; Fairburn et al., 1998) investigated multiple familial variables as potential risk factors for the development of EDs in women. Within the dieting vulnerability domain, they found that parental histories of obesity and familial dieting discriminated women with bulimia nervosa from healthy Address correspondence to Jessica C. Kichler, M.A., Department of Psychology, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242-0001; e-mail: [email protected]. 443 005-7894/01/0443--045751.00/0 Copyright 2001 by Associationfor Advancementof BehaviorTherapy All rights for reproductionin any form reserved.

444

K I C H L E R & CROWTHER

control subjects, while critical comments about shape, weight, or eating discriminated women with bulimia nervosa or binge-eating disorder from healthy controls (Fairburn et al., 1997, 1998). Crowther, Kichler, Sherwood, and Kuhnert (2000) examined three categories of familial variables, including general family dysfunction, family attitudes and behavior regarding food, and negative familial communication. All three blocks were found to be significant predictors of the severity of bulimic symptomatology in daughters. These findings establish the importance of investigating multiple levels of family variables in order to understand the many mechanisms through which families may influence their daughters' eating attitudes and behaviors. General family functioning was among the earliest variables to be investigated (Hill & Franklin, 1998; Pike & Rodin, 1991; Strober & Humphrey, 1987; Wonderlich, 1992), with researchers emphasizing the roles of family cohesion, conflict, expressiveness, and organization. Typically, research has found that when compared to families of women without EDs, the families of women with EDs are characterized by less cohesion (Blouin, Zuro, & Blouin, 1990; Fowler & Bulik, 1997; Johnson & Flach, 1985; Kog & Vandereycken, 1989), greater conflict (Hodges, Cochrane, & Brewerton, 1998; Kog & Vandereycken; Schmidt, Tiller & Treasure, 1993; Stuart, Laraia, & Ballenger, 1990), poorer expressiveness (Fowler & Bulik; Johnson & Flach), and greater disorganization (Johnson & Flach; Kog & Vandereycken). Despite these findings, general family dysfunction appears to be a risk factor for many psychopathologies, not just EDs (Miller et al., 1993). Thus, other familial factors, including negative familial communication and modeling, may play a more central role in the development of maladaptive eating behaviors in women.

Negative Familial Communication and Modeling The role of negative familial communication has been found to be a fairly strong influence in the development of EDs (Moreno & Thelen, 1993). Negative familial communication may involve critical comments about weight and shape, encouragement to diet, and teasing from family members about weight and shape (Fairburn et al., 1997, 1998). Kanakis and Thelen (1995) found that daughters with clinical or subclinical EDs reported more frequent negative appearance statements than women not exhibiting ED symptomatology and these statements had a greater influence on them. Also, the researchers found that familial criticism seemed to be more influential than peer criticism. Other studies have also found that parents of daughters with bulimia nervosa were reported to encourage their daughters to diet and lose weight more often than parents of daughters without bulimia nervosa (Moreno & Thelen, 1993; Pike & Rodin, 1991). While research on the impact of negative familial communication has yielded relatively consistent findings, research on the role of modeling in the transmission of maladaptive eating attitudes and behaviors has had more conflicting outcomes (Attie & Brooks-Gunn, 1989; Hill & Franklin, 1998;

M A T E R N A L M O D E L I N G A N D NEGATIVE F A M I L I A L C O M M U N I C A T I O N

445

Kanakis & Thelen, 1995; Pike & Rodin, 1991; Sanftner, Crowther, Crawford, & Watts, 1996). Researchers have utilized two primary methods of assessing the influence of modeling. The first method includes studies that examined the relationship between mothers' and daughters' eating attitudes and behaviors from nonclinical samples and investigated mothers' attitudes and behaviors as predictors of maladaptive eating attitudes and body dissatisfaction in daughters (Attie & Brooks-Gunn; Sanftner et al.). These studies typically have not found a significant relationship between maternal modeling and daughters' level of maladaptive eating. For example, Attie and Brooks-Gunn reported that mothers' body image and eating habits did not predict maladaptive eating behaviors in their daughters. Sanftner et al. found no significant relationships between mothers' and daughters' eating behaviors and attitudes at the prepubescent level. However, while they found some significant relationships between mothers' weight preoccupation, dieting, and bulimic behaviors and daughters' dieting and drive for thinness among postpubescent women, these maternal variables accounted for very small proportions of the variance in daughters' symptomatology. The second method of assessing familial modeling compares parents of daughters who already exhibit ED symptomatology to parents of women without ED symptomatology (Hill & Franklin, 1998; Kanakis & Thelen, 1995; Pike & Rodin, 1991). Pike and Rodin found that compared to mothers of women without ED symptomatology, mothers of daughters with ED symptomatology had a longer dieting history and higher levels of ED symptomatology and reported that their daughters were less attractive and should lose more weight. Hill and Franklin found that mothers with high-restraint daughters reported fasting more often and had lower evaluations of their daughters' attractiveness than mothers of women without symptomatology. The results of these two studies suggest that via modeling, mothers may play a role in the transmission of cultural values about weight, shape, and appearance. In contrast, although Kanakis and Thelen found that negative communication and pressure to lose weight were more prevalent among families of women with EDs, they did not find any significant differences between the parents of women with or without an ED on measures of body image, weight history, or eating behaviors. While one explanation for the discrepant findings regarding modeling may be methodological, a second explanation may be that the relationship between modeling and ED symptomatology is moderated by a third variable-negative familial communication. In a previous study, Kichler, Engler, and Crowther (1999) found that negative familial communication moderated the relationship between familial modeling and level of chronic dieting. More specifically, there was a significant relationship between familial modeling and chronic dieting only at low levels of negative familial communication. In this study, familial modeling was defined as the frequency of past and present dieting among fathers, mothers, and siblings, while negative familial communication was defined as the frequency of their negative appearance statements

446

KICHLER & CROWTHER

and encouragement to diet. There were some limitations to this study, however. The researchers only assessed chronic dieting. Chronic dieting is often a precursor to EDs (Heatherton & Polivy, 1992), yet many women who engage in chronic dieting do not develop EDs. The measure of familial modeling did not comprehensively measure maladaptive eating attitudes and behaviors. Moreover, family members' dieting histories were aggregated into one factor, thereby ignoring the way in which individual relationships may differentially influence the development of ED symptomatology in daughters. Given the results of the Kichler et al. (1999) study, it is possible that negative familial communication may serve as a moderator of the relationship between modeling and eating attitudes and body image among young women as well. Thus, this research examined the relationships among maternal modeling, negative familial communication, and daughters' eating attitudes and body image. This study also examined whether negative familial communication moderated the relationship between maternal modeling and daughters' eating attitudes and body image. It was hypothesized that negative familial communication would moderate the influence of maternal modeling even after general family dysfunction and Body Mass Index (BMI) are controlled. A nonclinical population was utilized because of the interest in the role of familial and maternal factors in predicting important precursors to EDs in young women. One question that arises is how to determine which family members should be incorporated into the modeling and communication variables. With a few exceptions (Kanakis & Thelen, 1995; Kichler et al., 1999), most studies examining modeling have focused on the mother-daughter relationship because mothers, in their own pursuit of the thin ideal, may exhibit their own body shape concerns and maladaptive eating behaviors to their daughters (i.e., modeling). Although there has been less research on fathers, research investigating the role of the father in the development of EDs in women has yielded few significant findings (e.g., Moreno & Thelen, 1993; Schwam, 1994). Moreno and Thelen found no significant differences between the fathers of women with bulimia nervosa, subclinical bulimia nervosa, or without ED symptomatology on items that measured paternal dieting history, control of daughter's food intake, and beliefs about ideal thinness. Given that mothers are likely to be more potent models for body image and dieting than fathers, it seems important to examine maternal influences in the modeling variable. However, mothers, fathers, and siblings may reinforce sociocultural standards by directly encouraging their daughters (sisters) to diet or making comments about her weight and shape (Pike & Rodin, 1991; Sanftner et al., 1996). Thus, all family members were included in the negative familial communication variable.

Method

Participants Participants were 148 college-aged women from a large, midwestern university who volunteered to participate in research on family eating attitudes

M A T E R N A L M O D E L I N G A N D NEGATIVE F A M I L I A L C O M M U N I C A T I O N

447

and behaviors. Of the 148 women who participated, 119 (80.4%) agreed to provide their mother's name and address to contact for further participation. Out of the 119 mothers whose information was provided, 111 (93.3%) were contacted and agreed to participate. A total of 103 mothers returned the questionnaires through the mail (92.8%). Independent sample t tests comparing daughters whose mothers participated in the study with those whose mothers did not yielded no significant differences in daughters' age; BMI; Family Environment Scale (FES; Moos & Moos, 1986) Conflict, Cohesion, Expression, and Organization subscales; negative familial communication; Body Shape Questionnaire (BSQ; Cooper, Taylor, Cooper, & Fairburn, 1987); and Eating Attitudes Test (EAT; Garner & Garfinkel, 1979) scores. The daughters whose mothers participated were, on average, 19.3 years of age (SD = 4.2) and their BMI (based on self-reported height and weight) was 23.3 (SD = 5.0). Their mothers were, on average, 46.74 years of age (SD = 6.4) and their BMI (based on self-reported height and weight) was 27.6 (SD = 5.5). The National Center for Health Statistics has suggested a BMI cutoff of 27 to identify overweight individuals (Brownell, 1995). Using this cutoff, 13.6% of the daughters and 47.5% of the mothers would be considered "overweight" Among this sample of daughters, 94.1% were Caucasian and 5.9% endorsed other ethnicities. The majority of the participants' parents were married (61.1%), 35.5% reported that their parents were either separated or divorced, and 2.2% reported other relationship status. Measures General Demographic and Family History Form. This questionnaire was developed for use in this project. It assesses general demographic information (e.g., age, race), family constellation (e.g., parents' marital status, number of siblings), and family history of weight problems and dieting behaviors (e.g., number of family members who are overweight and/or dieting). From questions on this form, a composite maternal dieting factor, consisting of maternal history of past and present dieting behaviors, was created by summing the responses that mothers positively endorsed. The correlation between maternal past and present dieting was low, but significant (r = .24, p < .01). Higher scores on the composite matemal dieting factor reflect higher rates of past and present dieting in the mothers. Familial Communication Form (Crowther et al., 2000). This questionnaire is a 9-item scale that assesses the frequency of negative communications from family members and peers. From this form, a composite negative familial communication variable was calculated by summing the 3 items measuring the perceived frequency of negative comments about appearance (e.g., "How frequently has your mother made negative comments about your physical appearance?") and the 3 items measuring the perceived frequency of encouragement to diet (e.g., "How frequently has your mother encouraged you to lose weight?") by her mother, father, and siblings. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, where higher scores represented higher frequencies of

448

KICHLER & CROWTHER

family members' negative communication toward their daughter. Crowther et al. reported a Cronbach's alpha of .83, while the alpha for this sample was .88.

Body Shape Questionnaire (BSQ; Cooper, Taylor, Cooper, & Fairburn, 1987). This is a 34-item self-report questionnaire that measures concerns about body shape. This questionnaire measures the experience of "feeling fat" for both clinical and nonclinical populations. The measure uses a 6-point Likert scale, where higher scores indicate greater body dissatisfaction. Rosen and Srebnik (1990) stated that this measure has the greatest utility for people with eating disorders. The BSQ has acceptable concurrent validity (Pearson's r = .35 to .61 between the BSQ and the EAT and the Eating Disorder Inventory; Cooper et al.). This measure has significant criterion validity in predicting group membership among groups established by self-report diagnostic criteria (t = 11.7,p < .000; Cooper et al.). Family Environment Scale (FES," Moos & Moos, 1986). This 90-item questionnaire measures three areas of general family environment: interpersonal relationships among family members, directions of personal growth, and basic organizational structure (Loveland-Cherry, Young-Blut, & Leidy, 1989). The measure is given in trne/false format and provides 10 subscale scores. Subscales from two of the three general family function scales will be utilized here: the interpersonal relationships among family members and the basic organizational structure. Within these two family functioning scales are the four family environment subscales to be used in this study: expressiveness, conflict, cohesion, and disorganization. The FES has acceptable internal consistency (cx = .68 to .86; Kuder-Richardson 20) and good concurrent, predictive, and construct validity (Moos & Moos). The test-retest reliabilities for 2 months (r = .68 to .86), 4 months (r = .54 to .89), and 12 months (r = .52 to .89) are strong (Moos, 1990). Eating Attitudes Test (Garner & Garfinkel, 1979). The EAT is a 40-item self-report questionnaire that measures a broad range of target behaviors found in women with eating disorders. The measure utilizes a 6-point Likert scale response format where higher scores are indicative of greater levels of eating pathology. The EAT has a high level of internal consistency (e~ = .79 to .94; Garner & Garfinkel). There is also evidence of its validity (r -- .72 between the EAT and group membership) and high levels of concurrent validity (r = .87; Garner & Garfinkel). The discfiminant validity shows that the EAT is related to eating disordered symptomatology and not related to dieting, weight fluctuations, extroversion, or neuroticism (r = .28, p > .05 between the EAT and the Revised Restraint Scale and r = .17,p > .1 between the EAT and the Eysenck Personality Inventory; Garner & Garfinkel).

Procedure Participants were recruited through the general psychology pool where they received experimental points for their participation. Following informed consent, the women were asked to complete the demographic and history form, the Familial Communication Form items, the FES, the EAT, and the BSQ in

MATERNAL MODELING AND NEGATIVE FAMILIAL COMMUNICATION

449

paper-and-pencil format. They were then asked to provide their mothers' addresses and phone numbers. The women received a chance to win a gift certificate if their mothers participated, but the mothers were under no obligation to participate. The mothers were then contacted over the telephone and the study was explained. Upon agreement to participate, the mothers were sent the informed consent form, demographic and history form, the Familial Communication Form items, the EAT, and the BSQ in paper-and-pencil format. If the mothers did not return the surveys within 3 weeks, they were sent a reminder card and were asked to complete and return the surveys. One daughter was chosen to receive the gift certificate and was contacted by telephone. Results

Intercorrelations Among Variables Table 1 summarizes descriptive statistics for all variables. Cooper et al. (1987) found that "probable cases of bulimia nervosa" had a mean B SQ score of 129.3; 14.8% of the daughters exceeded this cutoff. Garner and Garfinkel (1979) suggested that an EAT score of 30 identifies women with eating con-

TABLE 1 ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS AMONG VARIABLES Mean

(SD)

BSQ

97.4 (34.6) EAT 17.92 (16.4) BMI 23.27 (5.01) FES-Coh 6.58 (2.19) FES-Exp 5.12 (2 .O6) FES-Org 4.99 (2.25) FES-Con 5.43 (2.47) Fcom 12.99 (6.21) Model

1,00

BSQ

.539"

EAT

BMI

FESExp

FESOrg

FESCon

Fcom Model

1.00

,471"

.240

-.352*

-.188

-.137

-.240

-.018

-.178

-.119

FESCoh

1.00

.046 - .047 -.109

1.00 .442*

1.00

.366* - . 0 9 2

-.311"

-.123

.673*

.388*

.181

.366* - . 2 4 6

.207

.120

.028

.142

.245

1~0 .454*

1.00

-.227

-.204

- .257

1.00

.110

.109

-.034

-.106

1.00

Note. FES-Coh = Family Environment Scale - Cohesion subscale; FES-Exp = Family Environment Scale - Expressiveness subscale; FES-Org = Family Environment Scale Organization subscale; FES-Con = Family Environment Scale - Conflict subscale; Fcom = Family Communication. * p < .001, two-tailed.

450

KICHLER & CROWTHER

cerns comparable to those with anorexia nervosa; 19.6% of the daughters exceeded this score. Table 1 also summarizes the correlations among the variables. Only those correlations that reached significance using a Bonferroni correction of .001 will be highlighted. Significant correlations were found between the four FES subscales (FES-Cohesion and FES-Conflict, r = .67, p < .001; FES-Cohesion and FES-Expressiveness, r = .44, p < .001; FES-Cohesion and F E S Organization, r = .37, p < .001; and FES-Conflict and FES-Organization, r = .45, p < .001). Correlational analyses between the predictor and dependent variables yielded some significant findings. Daughters' BMI was found to be correlated with the B SQ (r = .47, p < .001 ). The amount of negative familial communication was found to significantly correlate with the BSQ (r = .39, p < .001). Results indicated that significant correlations were found between BSQ and two of the FES subscales (FES-Cohesion and BSQ, r = - .35, p < .001; FES-Conflict and B SQ, r = - . 3 1 , p < .001).

Mother-Daughter Correlations Correlations between mothers' and daughters' scores on BMI, negative familial communication, and the two dependent variables were conducted. Significant correlations were obtained between mothers' and daughters' BMI (r = .26, p < .01), their scores on negative familial communication (r = .24, p < .05), and their BSQ scores (r = .25, p < .05).

Multiple Regression Analyses Two hierarchical regression analyses were performed to test whether or not negative familial communication moderated the relationship between maternal modeling and daughters' EAT scores and the relationship between maternal modeling and daughters' BSQ scores. In each regression analysis, five control variables (BMI and the four FES subscales) were entered first, the predictor variable (maternal modeling) was entered second, the potential moderator (negative familial communication) was entered third, and the interaction between the predictor variable and potential moderator variable (maternal modeling X negative familial communication) was entered last. Moderating effects are indicated when the interaction term adds a significant amount of variance beyond the main effects (Baron & Kenny, 1986). The predictor variable of maternal modeling was derived in the following manner. The composite dieting variable of past and present dieting behaviors, EAT scores, and BSQ scores of the mothers were standardized. After each of these three variables was standardized, they were then summed to yield a composite maternal modeling score. Because it was thought that the daughters' perceptions were most important, the negative familial communication variable utilized in the analyses was from daughters' Familial Communication Forms. Centered scores for predictor and potential moderator variables were used in all analyses.

MATERNAL MODELING AND NEGATIVEFAMILIAL COMMUNICATION

451

M a t e r n a l modeling and daughters' E A T scores. T h e first regression analysis e x a m i n e d w h e t h e r negative familial c o m m u n i c a t i o n m o d e r a t e d the relationship b e t w e e n maternal m o d e l i n g and d a u g h t e r s ' EAT scores. Results revealed that d a u g h t e r s ' B M I a c c o u n t e d for 4.7% o f the variance, F ( 1 , 89) = 4.36, p < .04. (See Table 2). A l t h o u g h neither o f the m a i n effects was significant, the interaction term was significant and accounted for an additional 5.4% o f the variance in the daughters' EAT scores, F ( 8 , 82) = 5.44, p < .022. A d e c o m p o s i t i o n analysis (Jaccard, Tunhsi, & Wan, 1990) was run on the maternal m o d e l i n g and negative familial c o m m u n i c a t i o n interaction term to e x a m i n e w h e t h e r the slope o f the E A T scores was significantly different fi'om zero at high levels o f negative familial c o m m u n i c a t i o n (one standard deviation a b o v e the mean) and at low levels o f negative familial c o m m u n i c a t i o n (one standard deviation b e l o w the mean; see F i g u r e 1). T h e slope o f EAT scores was significantly different f r o m zero at high levels o f negative familial c o m m u n i c a t i o n but not low levels o f familial c o m m u n i c a t i o n . T h e s e results suggest that negative familial c o m m u n i c a t i o n does m o d e r a t e the relationship b e t w e e n maternal m o d e l i n g and d a u g h t e r s ' E A T scores. M a t e r n a l modeling a n d daughters' B S Q scores. T h e s e c o n d hierarchical regression was p e r f o r m e d to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r negative familial m o d e l i n g

TABLE 2 HIERARCHICALREGRESSIONFORTHE EAT AND BSQ

Hierarchical Regression for the EAT Body mass index Family environment scale Cohesion Expressiveness Organization Conflict Maternal modeling Negative familial communication Interaction term Hierarchical regression for BSQ Body mass index Family environment scale Cohesion Expressiveness Organization Conflict Maternal modeling Negative familial communication Interaction term

R

R2

AR2

AR2 (F)

B

.22 .34

.05 .12

.05 .07

4.36 1.70

.37 .37 .44

.14 .14 .19

.02 .002 .05

.08 1.83 5.45

.18"* ns -.34 .20 .14 .07 .17 ns .05 ns .24*

.44 .55

.19 .30

.19 .ll

21.11 3.34

.34** * -.23

.59 .60 .64

* p < .05, two-tailed; ** p < .01, two-tailed.

.35 .35 .41

.05 .001 .05

6.55 .27 7.14

-.01 -.06 -.10 .26* .05 ns .24*

452

KICHLER & CROWTHER

25

,,~ 22.33

20 15

~munication

8.23

10 5

l.o'~ C......... ion

/

-5

-10 -15

~

1.63

,U~i4.03

-20 Low

Maternal Modeling

High

F1G. 1. Moderatingeffectsof familialcommunicationon maternalmodelingand EAT scores. moderates the relationship between maternal modeling and BSQ scores in daughters. Results for the BSQ regression revealed that daughters' BMI accounted for 19.2% of the variance, F(1,89) = 21.11, p < .000. (See Table 2.) The general family dysfunction block also accounted for a significant pro-

140 ,a

120

123.7

High J Communication/

100 73.73

~ ~

7

~

80.56 ~unl

cation*

40 20 0

I

High

Low

Maternal Modeling FIG. 2.

Moderatingeffectsof familialcommunicationon maternalmodelingand BSQ scores.

MATERNAL MODELING AND NEGATIVE FAMILIAL COMMUNICATION

453

portion of the variance (11.0%), F(5, 85) = 3.34, p < .014. The main effect of maternal modeling and the interaction term also emerged as significant. The maternal modeling variable accounted for an additional 5.1% of the variance, F(7, 83) = 6.55, p < .012. Finally, the interaction term for negative familial communication and maternal modeling was found to account for an additional 5.2% of the variance, F(8, 82) = 7.14,p < .009. A decomposition analysis of the interaction was conducted to determine whether the slope of the BSQ scores was significantly different from zero at high levels of negative familial communication (one standard deviation above the mean) and at low levels of negative familial communication (one standard deviation below the mean). (See Figure 2.) The slope of the BSQ scores was significantly different from zero at high levels of negative familial communication, but not at low levels of familial communication. These results suggest that negative familial communication moderates the relationship between maternal modeling and BSQ scores. ~

Discussion This research addressed whether negative familial communication moderates the relationship between maternal modeling and daughters' body image and her eating attitudes and behaviors. As hypothesized, the results indicated that negative familial communication moderates the relationship between maternal modeling and the daughters' scores on both the EAT and BSQ measures. This relationship was found to be significant at high levels of negative familial communication, but not at low levels of negative familial communication. These results may clarify the equivocal findings with respect to mod-

i The discrepancy between the Kichler et al. (1999) findings and those of the present study raise two interesting questions regarding the conceptualization of the modeling construct. The first focuses solely on dieting behaviors, asking whether mother's dieting alone or the addition of other family members to the dieting variable changes the findings. To address this question, hierarchical regression analyses comparable to those in the present study were run. In the first two regression analyses (with the BSQ and EAT as dependent measures), the modeling variable was defined as only mother's past and present dieting behaviors. In the second two regression analyses, the modeling variable was defined as mother's, father's, and sibling's past and present dieting behaviors. While the main effects for maternal dieting and familial dieting were significant for the BSQ, the interaction between the modeling variable and negative familial communication was not significant. None of the main effects or interactions was significant for the EAT. The second question focuses solely on maternal modeling, asking whether mother's dieting behavior or her attitudes toward eating and body image are more important. To complement the first two regression analyses described above (in which only mother's dieting was entered as the modeling variable), two additional regression analyses (with the BSQ and EAT as dependent measures) were conducted, defining the modeling variable solely as the composite of the mother's BSQ and EAT scores. For both the BSQ and EAT, the interaction between maternal modeling and negative familial communication was significant. Decomposition analyses indicated that there was a significant relationship between modeling and the dependent variables at high, but not low, levels of negative familial communication.

454

KICHLER & CROWTHER

eling in past research (Attie & Brooks-Gunn, 1989; Hill & Franklin, 1998; Kanakis & Thelen, 1995; Pike & Rodin, 1991; Sanftner et al., 1996). Of the studies that did not find a relationship between maternal modeling and daughters' eating disorder level, two did not examine the role of negative familial communication (Attie& Brooks-Gunn; Sanftner et al.) while another did not examine the potential moderating effects of negative familial communication (Kanakis & Thelen). Even in the present study, the main effect of modeling did not emerge consistently. The main effect of modeling was significant for BSQ scores but not significant for daughters' EAT scores. The fact that modeling does not emerge as a significant effect for eating attitudes and behaviors may not be surprising, since this may be more driven by a young woman's success or failure with various weight-control regimens (Heatherton & Polivy, 1992). These results suggest that if maternal modeling does not occur in conjunction with high levels of negative familial communication, maternal modeling alone may not significantly impact the daughter's eating attitudes and behaviors. One major implication of this study is that negative familial communication should be assessed along with modeling to better understand the influence of modeling in the development of negative body image and maladaptive eating attitudes and behaviors in young women. Of interest is the finding that maternal modeling alone also emerged as a significant predictor of daughters' body image. The mother-daughter relationship may be unique since both women experience similar sociocultural pressures to pursue the thin beauty ideal, even though the average body weight of women has steadily increased over the years (Pike & Rodin, 1991; Rodin, Silberstein, & Striegel-Moore, 1984). Therefore, daughters may look to their mothers' behaviors to see how to cope with these societal pressures to be thin (Rodin et al.). By modeling their own concerns about their body image and corresponding eating attitudes and dieting behaviors, mothers may inadvertently reinforce these cultural standards. The results of this research suggest mothers are potent models for their daughters in terms of their beliefs and behaviors, yet they may be unaware that they are contributing to their daughters' body image and eating attitudes and behaviors. As these results suggest that modeling emerges as a significant influence only in the presence of high levels of negative familial communication, it is possible that daughters adopt their mothers' maladaptive eating attitudes and behaviors as a way of coping with high amounts of encouragement to diet and negative comments about weight and shape directed to them by family members. Both this research and the Kichler et al. (1999) study found that negative familial communication emerged as a moderator. In the present study, results indicated that at high levels of negative familial communication, maternal modeling was associated with daughters' maladaptive eating attitudes and behaviors. In contrast, Kichler et al. found that at low levels of negative familial communication, familial modeling was associated with daughters' dieting. Explanations for these discrepant findings may involve both the composition of the modeling variable and the nature of the criterion variable. In

M A T E R N A L M O D E L I N G A N D NEGATIVE F A M I L I A L C O M M U N I C A T I O N

455

Kichler et al., familial modeling was measured as a composite of past and present dieting behaviors among family members, a composite which measured behavior alone. Moreover, the criterion measure--chronic dieting-was also behavioral in nature. Thus, if multiple family members are engaging in dieting, the relationship between familial modeling and daughters' dieting may emerge at lower levels of negative familial communication. The fact that dieting alone emerged as a significant main effect in the post-hoc regression analyses conducted with the present sample suggests that modeling of dieting behavior is associated with daughters' body image as well. However, in this research, maternal modeling not only included mother's past and present dieting behaviors but also her attitudes toward eating and her satisfaction with her body image; the criterion measures--eating attitudes and body dissatisfaction--were comparable in nature. By utilizing a maternal modeling variable that assesses mothers' attitudes as well as her behaviors, high levels of negative familial communication may be needed to transmit the attitudes to the daughters. The post-hoc regression analyses provide additional support for the role played by high levels of negative familial communication in the transmission of attitudes toward eating and body image, since maternal modeling (defined only as the mother's eating attitudes and body satisfaction) was associated with daughters' EAT and BSQ scores only under conditions of high negative familial communication. There are several limitations to this study. First, although body dissatisfaction and maladaptive eating attitudes and behaviors are common among collegeaged women (Striegel-Moore, Silberstein, & Rodin, 1986), it should be noted that the use of a nonclinical, college-aged population limits the generalizability of the results. Second, mothers' and daughters' weights were based on self-report and, thus, may be subject to some bias. As daughters' BMI accounted for significant proportions of the variance in both dependent measures, it is important to recognize that weight--either alone or in conjunction with the familial factors investigated in this research--may play a significant role in these young women's satisfaction with their body and their attitudes toward eating. Third, the measure of negative familial communication was based on mothers' and daughters' self-report. Although mothers' and daughters' perceptions of familial communication were related, it is important to emphasize that it was their perceptions of negative familial communication. Fourth, the influence of paternal or sibling modeling was not assessed. Future research should obtain other family members' perceptions of negative familial communication as well as explore the various other relationships in daughters' lives to determine whether modeling is evident in these relationships. Moreover, daughters were not asked if they were aware of their mothers' body dissatisfaction. Clearly, in studies such as this one, definitive causal inferences about the roles of modeling and negative familial communication cannot be made. The major contribution of this study is the identification of negative familial communication as a moderator of the relationship between maternal modeling and daughters' negative body image and maladaptive eating attitudes

456

KICHLER & CROWTHER

and behaviors. These findings have implications for the prevention of eatingrelated problems among women as well as future research. Prevention programs that decrease the amount of negative familial communication early on may help prevent daughters from adopting the maladaptive eating behaviors and attitudes displayed by their mothers and, potentially, other family members. Moreover, research on the influence of modeling and negative familial communication on younger females is needed. Sanftner et al. (1996) found maternal modeling to be significant only for postpubescent daughters, indicating that there may be differential influences of modeling based on age. Similarly, negative familial communication may become more salient to daughters after puberty as well because of their changing bodies. Prospective research should examine the potential temporal relationship of parental modeling and negative familial communication on adolescent women.

References Attie, I., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1989). Development of eating problems in adolescent girls: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 25, 70-79. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Blouin, A. G., Zuro, C., & Blouin, J. H. (1990). Family environment in bulimia: The role of depression. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 9, 649--658. Brownell, K. D. (1995). Definition and classification of obesity. In K. D. Brownell & C. G. Fairburn (Eds.), Eating disorders and obesity: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 386-390). New York: The Guilford Press. Cooper, P. J., Taylor, M. J., Cooper, Z., & Fairburn, C. G. (1987). The development of the body shape questionnaire. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 6,485-494. Crowther, J. H., Kichler, J. C., Sherwood, N. E., & Kuhnert, M. E. (2000). The role of familial factors in the etiology of bulimia nervosa. Manuscript submitted for publication. Fairburn, C. G., Doll, H. A., Welch, S. L., Hay, P. J., Davies, B. A., & O'Conner, M. E. (1998). Risk factors for binge eating disorder: A community-based, case control study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 55,425-432. Fairburn, C. G., Welch, S., Doll, H. A., Davies, B. A., & O'Conner, M. E. (1997). Risk factors for bulimia nervosa: A community-based, case-control study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 54,509-517. Fowler, S. J., & Bulik, C. M. (1997). Family environment and psychiatric history in women with binge-eating disorder and obese controls. Behavior Change, 14,106-112. Garner, D. M., & Garfinkel, P. E. (1979). The eating attitudes test: An index of the symptoms of anorexia nervosa. Psychological Medicine. 9,273-279. Head, S. B., & Williamson, D. A. (1991). Association of family environment and personality disturbances in bulimia nervosa. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 9,667-674. Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1992). Chronic dieting and eating disorders: A spiral model. In J. Crowther, D. Tennenbaum, S. Hobfoll, & M. A. Stephens (Eds.), The etiology ofbulimia nervosa (pp. 133-155). Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Company. Hill, A. J., & Franklin, J. A. (1998). Mothers, daughters and dieting: Investigating the transmission of weight control. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37, 3-13. Hodges, E. L., Cochrane, C. E., & Brewerton, T. D. (1998). Family characteristics of binge-eating disorder patients. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 23, 145-151.

MATERNAL MODELING AND NEGATIVE FAMILIAL COMMUNICATION

457

Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., & Wan, C. K. (1990). Interaction effects in multiple regression. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Johnson, C. J., & Connors, M. E. (1987). The etiology and treatment of bulimia nervosa: A biopsychosocial perspective. New York: Basic Books. Johnson, C. J., & Flach, A. (1985). Family characteristics of 105 patients with bulimia. American Journal of Psychiatry, 142, 1321-1324. Kanakis, D. M., & Thelen, M. H. (1995). Parental variables associated with bulimia nervosa. Addictive Behaviors, 20, 491-500. Kichler, J. C., Engler, P, A., & Crowther, J. H. (1999, November). Familial modeling and communication transmission in women with eating disorders. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Toronto, Canada. Kog, E., & Vandereycken, W. (1989). Family interaction in eating disorder patients and normal controls. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 8, 11-23. Loveland-Cherry, C. J., Young-Blut, J. M., & Leidy, N. K. (1989). A psychometric analysis of the Family Environment Scale. Nursing Research, 28, 262-266. Miller, D. A., McCluskey-Fawcett, K., & Irving, L. M. (1993). Correlates of bulimia nervosa: Early family mealtime experiences. Adolescence, 28, 621~535. Moos, R. H. (1990). Conceptual and empirical approaches to developing family-based assessment procedures: Resolving the case of the Family Environment Scale. Family Process, 29, 109-124. Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1986). Family Environment Scale manual (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Moreno, A. B., & Thelen, M. H. (1993). Parental factors related to bulimia nervosa. Addictive Behaviors, 18, 681-689. Pike, K. M., & Rodin, J. (1991). Mothers, daughters, and disordered eating. Journal of Abnorreal Psychology, 100, 198-204. Rodin, J., Silberstein, L., & Striegel-Moore, R. (1984). Women and weight: A normative discontent. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 32,267-307. Rosen, J. C., & Srebnik, D. (1990). The assessment of eating disorders. In P. McReynolds, J. C. Rosen, & G. J. Chelune (Eds.), Advances in psychological assessment (pp. 229-260). New York: Plenum. Sanftner, J. L., Crowther, J. H., Crawford, P. A., & Watts, D. D. (1996). Maternal influences (or lack thereof) on daughters' eating attitudes and behaviors. Eating Disorders, 4, 147-159. Schmidt, U., Tiller, J., & Treasure, J. (1993). Setting the scene for eating disorders: Childhood care, classification and course of illness. Psychological Medicine, 23,663-672. Schwam, K. T. (1994). Eating disorders: An examination of paternal pathology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, Kent, OH. Streigel-Moore, R. H., Silberstein, L. R., & Rodin, J. (1986). Toward an understanding of risk factors for bulimia. American Psychologist, 41,246-263. Strober, M., & Humphrey, L. L. (1987). Familial contributions to the etiology and course of anorexia nervosa and bulimia. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55,654-659, Stuart, G. W., Laraia, M. T., & Ballenger, J. C. (1990). Early family experiences of women with bulimia and depression. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 4, 43-52. Vandereycken, W. (1994). Parental rearing behavior and eating disorders. In C. Perris, W. A. Arrindell, & M. Eisemann (Eds.), Parenting and psychopathology (pp. 219-234). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Wonderlich, S. (1992). Relationship of family and personality factors in bulimia. In J. Crowther, D. Tennenbaum, S. Hobfoll, & M. A. Stephens (Eds.), The etiology of bulimia nervosa (pp. 103-121). Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing. RECEIVED: June 26, 2000 ACCEPTED: November 13, 2000