Body image ups and downs: prediction of intra-individual level and variability of women’s daily body image experiences

Body Image 1 (2004) 225–235

Body image ups and downs: prediction of intra-individual level and variability of women’s daily body image experiences Susan E. Melnyk, Thomas F. Cash∗ , Louis H. Janda Department of Psychology, Old Dominion University, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA Received 17 January 2004; received in revised form 10 March 2004; accepted 12 March 2004

Abstract This investigation assessed body image states in the context of everyday life among 108 college women. Participants initially completed measures of body image traits and eating attitudes and subsequently called an automated telephonic response system twice daily for 6 days to convey current body image experiences on the Body Image States Scale. The research examined the extent to which selected pretest variables predicted the level and variability of body image states. As hypothesized, less favorable body image state levels were associated with lower trait body image satisfaction, more body image dysphoria, more dysfunctional investment in appearance, more disturbed eating attitudes, and the use of less adaptive and more maladaptive body image coping strategies. Also as expected, body image variability was predicted by psychological investment in one’s appearance, disturbed eating attitudes, and appearance-fixing coping strategies. Implications of the results and future research directions are discussed. © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Body image states; Appearance self-schemas; Body image coping; Eating pathology

Introduction Most body image research has regarded body image as stable, trait-level constructs, focusing on persons’ dispositional evaluations or typical experiences. However, a cognitive-behavioral perspective emphasizes the fluidity of body image experiences as contextually embedded states (Cash, 1994, 2002a, 2002b; Tiggemann, 2001; Williamson, Stewart, White, & York-Crowe, 2002). According to this viewpoint (Cash, 2002b), particular events can insti∗

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-757-683-4439; fax: +1-757-683-5087. E-mail address: [email protected] (T.F. Cash).

gate schema-driven cognitive processing about one’s looks, and these processes may engender state body image evaluations and affect, followed by adjustive reactions (e.g., coping). There is a dearth of research on state body image experiences in real-life contexts and an empirical neglect of intra-individual variation in such experiences. The purpose of this study was to examine the day-to-day levels and variability of body image states and to evaluate selected determinants. Attitudinal body image The evaluative facet of body image attitudes focuses on the individual’s satisfaction or dissatisfaction with his or her physical appearance, reflecting the evalu-

1740-1445/$ – see front matter © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2004.03.003

226

S.E. Melnyk et al. / Body Image 1 (2004) 225–235

ative thoughts and beliefs about appearance (Cash, 2002b). Body image evaluation is typically assessed by measures of dissatisfaction–satisfaction with overall appearance or with specific physical characteristics (e.g., body weight or shape) (Thompson & van den Berg, 2002). Women tend to evaluate their bodies more negatively than men (Feingold & Mazzella, 1998; Muth & Cash, 1997). These evaluations may activate strong emotional arousal (e.g., dysphoria) in particular situations (Muth & Cash, 1997). A cognitive aspect of body image includes appearance investment (Cash, 2002b). The Appearance Schemas Inventory (ASI; Cash & Labarge, 1996) and its recent revision (ASI-R; Cash, Melnyk, & Hrabosky, 2004) assess the cognitive beliefs and assumptions individuals have regarding their body, specifically their appearance schematicity. Research on the ASI and ASI-R has shown that highly invested individuals attentively focus on their appearance and engage in behaviors to maintain or enhance their appearance (Cash, 1994; Cash & Labarge, 1996; Cash, Melnyk, et al., 2004; Muth & Cash, 1997). Appearance schematic persons have greater public self-consciousness, lower self-esteem, a higher degree of social anxiety, and greater eating disturbances (Cash & Labarge, 1996; Cash, Melnyk, et al., 2004). Highly invested individuals are also more susceptible to situational distress about their appearance (Cash, 2002c; Cash, Fleming, Alindogan, Steadman, & Whitehead, 2002; Cash, Melnyk, et al., 2004) and report a greater inpact of body image on quality of life (Cash, Jakatdar, & Williams, 2004), which could impact their body image stability in everyday life. State body image Individuals may experience discrete emotions in particular contexts that call self-attention to their physical appearance—for example, certain social or body-exposing situations, looking in a mirror, or viewing media that emphasize cultural appearance standards (Cash, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c; Tiggemann, 2001). These emotional states, such as anxiety, shame, or self-consciousness, constitute body image affect, which may vary from person to person and situation to situation. Body image research has traditionally focused on stable, trait-like characteristics, and a few researchers have investigated body image states

(Cash, 2002a). Most of these studies measure states in laboratory experimental designs, such as in studies of the effects of exposure to thin-and-beautiful media ideals (Groesz, Levine, & Murnen, 2002; Tiggemann, 2002). Little empirical attention has been directed toward the assessment of body image states in everyday life. Franzoi, Kessenich, and Sugrue (1989) designed a study to elucidate such experiences. Participants were provided an electronic timing device that was preset to randomly emit an audible tone. When they heard the tone they were to complete a questionnaire about what they had been doing in the last few minutes and to indicate their body awareness at that time. Franzoi et al. (1989) found that when women were attentive to their bodies they experienced more negative affect than did men. Also, women were more likely than men to focus on specific body parts/functions rather than on their bodies as a whole. Amorose (2001) conducted a study pertinent to state body image stability. He defined “intra-individual variability” (IIV) as the degree to which individuals show short-term fluctuations in their evaluation of and affect toward their abilities and attributes, including their global and physical self-evaluations. Data were collected during seven sessions over a 3-week period. In the first session, data were gathered on typical (trait-like) self-evaluations. The next four sessions entailed assessments of how participants currently felt about themselves. The final two sessions included measures of physical activity motivation and background information. Results indicated some IIV in most students’ global and physical selfevaluations, and participants with more negative trait self-evaluations experienced more short-term fluctuations. IIV was slightly greater in global self-worth than in self-evaluations of physical competence. Tiggemann (2001) also investigated the impact of situational factors on women’s body image experiences. Participants were asked to imagine themselves in four scenarios: (a) being at the beach (bodyfocused and social); (b) being in a dressing room (body-focused but nonsocial); (c) eating in the cafeteria (non-body-focused but social); (d) being at home (non-body-focused and not social). Subsequent to each scenario, participants reported their overall body satisfaction and satisfaction with particular body areas. Results revealed that women’s perceptions of

S.E. Melnyk et al. / Body Image 1 (2004) 225–235

and satisfaction with their bodies varied depending on which scenario they imagined. However, there still was a consistent level of body esteem across the different situations, suggesting that body image includes both dispositional and situational aspects. The Body Image States Scale (BISS; Cash et al., 2002) was constructed to assess the momentary evaluative and affective aspects of body image. The six-item BISS measures current body image experiences: (1) overall physical appearance dissatisfaction/ satisfaction; (2) body size and shape dissatisfaction/ satisfaction; (3) weight dissatisfaction/satisfaction; (4) feelings of physical unattractiveness/attractiveness; (5) feelings about one’s looks compared to how one usually feels; (6) appearance evaluation compared to how the average person looks. The initial validation study on the BISS showed that individuals with greater trait body image dissatisfaction, greater overweight preoccupation, and more dysfunctional appearance investment also had less favorable body image states. Across contexts, body image states were less favorable among women. The researchers also manipulated four imagined scenarios similar to Tiggemann (2001). Two scenarios were positive and two were negative. Although body image states were less favorable in the imagined negative versus positive scenarios for both genders, women’s responses to negative contexts were stronger than men’s responses were. Body image coping Body image coping mechanisms refer to strategies that persons use to manage their thoughts and feelings associated with threats or challenges to their body image. Cash, Santos, and Williams (in press) identified three such coping strategies—avoidance, appearance fixing, and positive rational acceptance. Avoidant strategies are attempts to avoid or deny the threat or one’s emotional reactions. Appearance fixing strategies involve attempts to alter or conceal that aspect of one’s appearance experienced as distressing. Positive rational acceptance is the most adaptive coping strategy, whereby individuals engage in constructive self-talk to accept their appearance and emotions. Individuals with maladaptive coping strategies (avoidance and appearance fixing) would be expected to be more affected by threats to their body image, thus causing their body image states to be more variable. Individ-

227

uals who use positive rational acceptance should not experience as much distress when their body image is threatened, resulting in a more constant or stable body image experience (Cash, 2002b). Purposes of this investigation This study was modeled after investigations of self-esteem stability conducted by Kernis and his colleagues. They defined self-esteem stability (or instability) as short-term variations that individuals experience in their immediate, situationally based feelings of self-worth (Greenier et al., 1999; Kernis, Greenier, Herlocker, Whisenhunt, & Abend, 1997; Kernis et al., 1998; Paradise & Kernis, 2002). The researchers measured self-esteem twice daily over a period of a week, using a modified version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Self-esteem stability was then computed as the standard deviation of each participant’s scores across occasions, with higher standard deviations reflecting greater response variability and more unstable self-esteem (Greenier et al., 1999; Kernis et al., 1997, 1998; Paradise & Kernis, 2002). Individuals who experienced greater fluctuation in their perceived social acceptance and in their day-to-day competence had greater overall self-esteem instability. Also, unstable self-esteem was associated with more variability in individuals’ specific self-evaluations and with the importance placed on these self-evaluations as an appraisal of their overall self-worth (Kernis, Cornell, Sun, Berry, & Harlow, 1993). More stable self-esteem was associated with increased feelings of self-worth and increased pleasure from a good performance (Kernis et al., 1997); with less depressive symptoms experienced when confronted with overwhelming daily hassles (Kernis et al., 1998); with less responsiveness to daily positive and negative events (Greenier et al., 1999); and with greater independence, purpose in life, self-acceptance, and more positive relations with others (Paradise & Kernis, 2002). These studies collectively confirm the utility of sampling momentary self-evaluative states to study their average level and their stability. Data for the current study were collected in three phases. Phase 1 entailed the collection of predictor variables. Phase 2 utilized a data collection technique known as Interactive Voice Response (IVR; Janda,

228

S.E. Melnyk et al. / Body Image 1 (2004) 225–235

Janda, & Tedford, 2001), which allows participants to complete survey research by calling into an automated telephonic system. Responses are entered into a computer database, along with the date/time the call occurred. This methodology has clear advantages over the use of questionnaires supposedly completed at particular times but handed in later. In Phase 3, participants completed a Post-Study Questionnaire to convey their experiences of the study. The main question this study attempted to answer was whether selected trait measures of body image and an eating-attitudes measure are reliable predictors of body image states, both the average state levels and, more importantly, the variability of the states over time. Guided by Cash’s (2002b) cognitive-behavioral model, body image trait variables included evaluation, investment, affect, and coping strategies. The following hypotheses were tested: (1) greater trait body dissatisfaction and dysphoria are expected to predict less favorable body image states; (2) dysfunctional appearance investment (schematicity) is expected to predict less favorable and more unstable body image states; (3) less usage of positive rational acceptance coping and more usage of appearance fixing and avoidant coping are hypothesized to predict less favorable and less stable body image states; (4) greater eating disturbance is expected be related to more negative and unstable body image states.

Method Participants In exchange for extra credit in psychology courses, 148 women attending Old Dominion University enrolled in this study. Forty women were dropped from the final sample because they did not sufficiently comply with the instructions. Noncompliance analyses are presented in the Results section. The remaining 108 participants ranged in age from 18 to 47 years, with a mean age of 22.4 (SD = 4.7). The sample consisted of 60% White women, 35% African American women, 3% Hispanic/Latina women, and 1% who were Asian or “other ethnicity.” Most women were heterosexual (94%) and single (85%). Body mass indices (BMI = kg/m2 ) ranged from 16.2 to 41.7 (M = 23.9; SD = 5.3).

Measures Body Areas Satisfaction Scale (BASS) The BASS (Brown, Cash, & Mikulka, 1990; Cash, 2004) is a 9-item subscale of the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ) that taps trait satisfaction–dissatisfaction with specific body areas and attributes—namely, face, hair, lower torso, mid torso, upper torso, muscle tone, weight, height, and overall appearance. Participants use a 5point response scale, from 1: Very Dissatisfied to 5: Very Satisfied. Internal consistency for this sample was 0.76. Appearance Schemas Inventory-Revised (ASI-R) The ASI-R (Cash, 2004; Cash, Melnyk, et al., 2004) is a 20-item scale that assesses body image investment vis-à-vis appearance self-schemas—i.e., beliefs and assumptions about the importance and influence of appearance in one’s life. The ASI-R consists of two factor subscales: Self-Evaluative Salience (12 items) incorporates beliefs that one’s appearance is an important determinant of one’s worth and one’s experiences. Motivational Salience (8 items) pertains to the importance one places on being attractive and managing or enhancing appearance. Items are rated on a 5-point scale from 1: Strongly Disagree to 5: Strongly Agree. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.80 for each subscale. Situational Inventory of Body Image Dysphoria-Short Form (SIBID-S) The 20-item SIBID-S (Cash, 2002c, 2004) quantifies negative body image emotions in specific contexts (e.g., “At social gatherings where I know few people; when I am with attractive persons of the other sex; when I look at my nude body in the mirror”). The measure uses a 5-point response scale from 0: Never to 4: Always or Almost Always. Its internal consistency was 0.94 for this sample. Body Image Coping Strategies Inventory (BICSI) The BICSI (Cash, 2004; Cash et al., in press) is a 29-item, 3-factor assessment of how individuals cope with situations that challenge or threaten their body image. The 8-item Avoidance subscale includes coping mechanisms that attempt to avoid the threat to one’s body image (e.g., “I try to ignore the situation and my feelings”). The 10-item Appearance Fixing

S.E. Melnyk et al. / Body Image 1 (2004) 225–235

subscale measures attempts to change one’s appearance by altering or concealing the physical feature(s) of concern (e.g., “I make a special effort to hide or ‘cover-up’ what’s troublesome about my looks”). The 11-item Positive Rational Acceptance subscale taps strategies of self-reassurance about and acceptance of one’s appearance and emotions (e.g., “I tell myself that I probably look better than I feel that I do”). BICSI items are rated from 0: Definitely Not Like Me to 3: Definitely Like Me, according to how accurately the coping strategy depicts what one does or would do in response to a body image threat. Internal consistencies of Avoidance, Appearance Fixing, and Positive Rational Acceptance subscales were 0.85, 0.82, and 0.86, respectively. Eating Attitudes Test (EAT–26) The EAT-26 (Garner, Olmsted, Bohr, & Garfinkel, 1982) is a well-validated assessment of eating attitudes and behaviors, which is used to detect persons at risk for eating disorders. Participants rate the 26 items on a scale from 0: Never to 5: Always. In this nonclinical sample, continuous rather than discontinuous (clinical) scoring was used; internal consistency was 0.91. Demographic form This questionnaire obtains information about the participant, including age, gender, ethnicity, height, weight, relationship status, and sexual orientation. Body Image States Scale (BISS) The BISS (Cash, 2004; Cash et al., 2002) is a sixitem measure of current body image experiences at a particular point in time or in a specific context. Items tap experiences of (1) overall physical appearancel; (2) body size and shape; (3) weight, (4) physical attractiveness-unattractiveness; (5) current feelings regarding one’s looks compared to how one typically feels; (6) evaluation of one’s appearance compared to the average person’s appearance. Items are rated on 9-point, bipolar, Likert-type scales in terms of how the respondent feels “right now at this moment.” Cash et al. (2002) confirmed the internal consistency of the BISS (alpha = 0.77 for women) and the measure’s sensitivity to contextual and experimental manipulations. The reliability of the various BISS administrations in this study ranged acceptably from 0.75 to 0.86.

229

Post-Study Questionnaire On this questionnaire, participants offered feedback regarding the study. They rated the convenience of telephonic response system and whether the design of the study accurately assessed their body image experiences. Procedure Phase 1 After an informed consent procedure, participants anonymously (i.e., using a nominal code number) completed pretest measures in a private laboratory setting. They were then provided a laminated copy of the Body Image States Scale as well as oral and written instructions for the second phase of the study. Phase 2 Participants were asked to call an automated telephonic response system twice daily, over a 6-day period, and enter their responses to the BISS. Participants were instructed to make their first call in the morning before they left their house, preferably by noon. Their second call was to occur in the evening about an hour after they ate dinner, preferably between 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. When participants called the computerized system, they received general instructions and were prompted to enter their code number and answers to the BISS items. Phase 3 After 6 days, participants returned to the laboratory to complete the Post-Study Questionnaire, receive a debriefing form, and obtain extra-credit vouchers.

Results Participant compliance Prior to analysis, data were examined for compliance with instructions for Phase 2 of the study. Compliance was defined as missing no more than 3 of the 12 telephone calls. BISS entries were accepted if recorded before 2 p.m. for morning calls and between 5 p.m. and 2 a.m. for evening calls. From the original sample of 148 women, 40 women (27%) were

230

S.E. Melnyk et al. / Body Image 1 (2004) 225–235

dropped from primary data analyses because they did not meet these compliance criteria. Procedural noncompliance raises a question about the representativeness of the final sample. Therefore, one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) or chi-square analyses evaluated possible differences between participants who did and did not met the requirements for Phase 2. The two groups did not differ on their BMIs (F(1, 146) = 0.51, n.s.), nor on the BASS (F(1, 146) = 0.55, n.s.), SIBID-S (F(1, 146) = 0.02, n.s.), ASI-R subscales of SelfEvaluative Salience (F(1, 146) = 2.04, n.s.) and Motivational Salience (F(1, 146) = 3.73, n.s.), the BICSI subscales of Appearance Fixing (F(1, 146) = 0.91, n.s.), Avoidance (F(1, 146) = 0.41, n.s.), or Positive Rational Acceptance (F(1, 146) = 0.17, n.s.), or EAT-26 scores (F(1, 146) = 0.03, n.s.). A majority of the sample (94%) consisted of Caucasian and African American women, who did not differ in compliance (χ2 (1) = 1.19, n.s.). The only significant difference was on age (F(1, 146) = 5.72, p < 0.05). Women who met the criteria (i.e., were more compliant) were somewhat older (M = 22.4; SD = 4.7) than women who did not meet the criteria (M = 20.5; SD = 2.8). BISS analyses A six-item mean was computed for each observational occasion (after reverse-scoring the three items written in a negative direction). Higher scores reflect more favorable body image states. Two BISS metrics were calculated for each participant: (1) the aver-

age level of body image dissatisfaction was computed as the mean of all available BISS observations (i.e., across 9–12 occasions). (2) The stability/instability (or variability) of average BISS states over these occasions was calculated as their standard deviation. Both metrics were normally distributed, with a broad range of scores across participants. Levels ranged from 2.17 to 7.91 on the 9-point BISS (M = 5.62; SD = 1.04). Stability/instability indices ranged from 0 to 1.58 (M = 0.79; SD = 0.32). Pearson correlations were conducted to ascertain the extent to which trait body image and eating-attitude variables predicted participants’ average level and stability (variability) of body image states. Poorer average levels of state body image and greater state body image variability were hypothesized to be associated with greater trait body dissatisfaction (BASS) and dysphoria (SIBID-S), more dysfunctional investment in one’s appearance (ASI-R), less adaptive body image coping strategies (BICSI), and more disturbed eating attitudes (EAT-26). Table 1 gives the correlations of these measures with the BISS mean and standard deviation. The correlations supported most hypotheses pertaining to body image state levels. ASI-R Motivational Salience was the only measure that was not significantly correlated with BISS level means. As expected, trait body satisfaction was the strongest predictor of the average of body image state levels. It is noteworthy that this correlation of 0.74 (i.e., 55% shared variation) surpassed the correlations of the trait measure with each of the 12 point-in-time states (mean r = 0.58,

Table 1 Correlations of body image traits and eating attitudes with BISS means and standard deviations Measures of trait body image and eating attitudes

BISS mean (state level)

BISS standard deviation (state variability)

Body Areas Satisfaction (BASS) Self-Evaluative Salience (ASI-R) Motivational Salience (ASI-R) Body image dysphoria (SIBID-S) Coping by appearance fixing (BICSI) Coping by avoidance (BICSI) Coping by positive rational acceptance (BICSI) Eating attitudes (EAT-26)

0.74∗∗∗ −0.36∗∗∗ −0.03 −0.56∗∗∗ −0.22∗ −0.30∗∗ 0.34∗∗∗ −0.49∗∗∗

−0.01 (0.16) 0.27∗∗ (0.24∗ ) 0.31∗∗∗ (0.30∗∗∗ ) 0.16 (0.09) 0.24∗ (0.21∗ ) 0.12 (0.08) −0.04 (0.02) 0.23∗ (0.18)

Note: parenthetical values are partial correlations in which BISS means (levels) have been controlled. ∗ p < 0.05. ∗∗ p < 0.01. ∗∗∗ p < 0.001.

S.E. Melnyk et al. / Body Image 1 (2004) 225–235

ranging from 0.47 to 0.66, accounting for an average of 34% shared variation). Coping by positive rational acceptance was also significantly associated with more favorable average BISS levels. Self-Evaluative Salience, body image dysphoria, and appearance fixing and avoidance coping were significantly related to lower average BISS levels. Finally, as hypothesized, participants with more disturbed eating attitudes reported significantly poorer average body image states. The next set of hypotheses pertains to participants’ variability in body image states over time. As Table 1 shows, the variation in BISS scores was unrelated to trait body image evaluation, body image dysphoria, or coping by avoidance or positive rational acceptance. However, as expected, BISS variability was significantly, positively related to Self-Evaluative Salience and Motivational Salience, appearance-fixing coping, and disturbed eating attitudes. Table 1 also provides partial correlations between the BISS standard deviation and all measures after controlling for the BISS mean. This analysis permits a determination of the relationships of the predictors with body image state variability independent of state levels. There was a modest but nonsignificant relationship (r = −0.15, n.s.) between the BISS mean (M = 5.62; SD = 1.04) and the BISS standard deviation (M = 0.79; SD = 0.32). Therefore, not surprisingly, when the BISS mean was controlled in partial correlations, associations remained significant between the BISS standard deviation and the ASI-R SelfEvaluative Salience and Motivational Salience scores and Appearance Fixing scores of the BICSI. Only the correlation between BISS variability and disturbed eating attitudes became marginally significant (p < 0.07). Regression analysis for eating pathology Given the importance of understanding eating pathology in relation to body image experiences, standard multiple regression was carried out to examine the prediction of participants’ EAT-26 scores from trait body image satisfaction (BASS) and BISS average state levels and variability. In the significant regression equation (R = 0.543, R2 = 0.295, F(3, 104) = 14.50, p < 0.001), each of the three variables were uniquely and additively associated with

231

the EAT-26. Greater eating pathology was associated with less favorable state (β = −0.28, p < 0.03) and trait (␤=−.25, p < 0.05) body image evaluations and greater intra-individual state body image variability (β = 0.18, p < 0.03). Exploratory and qualitative analyses Correlations with BMI Bivariate correlations tested the relationship between body mass and BISS indices. BMI had a significant negative correlation with BISS level (r = −0.40, p < 0.001), but not with BISS variability (r = −0.10, n.s.). Time-of-day effects A paired-samples t test compared morning and evening BISS levels. The average morning BISS level of 5.60 (SD = 1.03) and evening level of 5.62 (SD = 1.12) did not differ (t(107) = −0.42, n.s.). Morning and evening levels were highly correlated (r = 0.87). Ethnicity effects An ANOVA compared White and African American women on the BISS mean and variability scores. They did not differ on the BISS mean (F(1, 101) = 0.46, n.s.) or the BISS standard deviation (F(1, 101) = .01, n.s.). BISS means for Whites and African Americans were 5.58 (SD = 1.14) and 5.72 (SD = 0.82), respectively. Standard deviations of the BISS averaged 0.79 (SD = 0.33) for Whites and 0.80 (SD = 0.32) for African Americans. Self-reported body image fluctuations The Post-Study Questionnaire included a 5-point rating of the extent of body image fluctuations during the study. A significant correlation (r = 0.39, p < 0.001) between this report and BISS variability scores indicated a reliable moderate convergence between self-perceived and actual body image fluctuations over the period of study. Data quality On the Post-Study Questionnaire, 90% of the women reported that telephonic responding was mostly to very convenient. They were completely (43%) or mostly (53%) confident that their BISS ratings accurately reflected how they felt at the time.

232

S.E. Melnyk et al. / Body Image 1 (2004) 225–235

Discussion Very little body image research actually assesses body image states over the course of everyday life (Cash, 2002a). Even less research examines the intraindividual variability of these experiences (Amorose, 2001). The main objective of this study, using a computerized telephonic methodology (Janda et al., 2001), was to investigate hypothesized predictors of average daily body image state levels and their variability. Specifically, we sought to determine whether trait measures of body image and eating attitudes would predict women’s average level and stability of body image states assessed twice daily over 6 days. Our results provide support for a majority of the hypotheses. More favorable body image state levels were significantly associated with greater trait satisfaction with one’s appearance. While this is an obvious hypothesis, it serves to test the seldom examined validity of trait body image satisfaction in relation to body images experiences sampled in everyday life. Thus, dispositional body image satisfaction measured by the BASS subscale of the MBSRQ was a very good predictor of participants’ subsequent aggregated body image states (r = 0.74). The prediction of single point-in-time states was good but less precise (mean r = 0.58). Furthermore, reported cross-situational body image dysphoria on the SIBID-S was moderately associated with poorer average state levels. With respect to body image investment, as hypothesized, greater schematic investment in one’s appearance as a self-defining factor (ASI-R Self-Evaluative Salience) predicted less favorable state levels. On the other hand, Motivational Salience, which refers to one’s cognitive-behavioral investment in appearing attractive and managing one’s appearance (e.g., grooming behaviors), did not correlate significantly with average state levels. With respect to body image coping strategies, appearance fixing and avoidance were related to less favorable state levels, while positive rational acceptance was associated with more favorable levels. Finally, women who endorsed more maladaptive eating attitudes reported poorer day-to-day body image states. Four of these predictors were also significantly related to intra-individual variability (or instability) of participants’ body image states. The lack of a significant correlation between average state levels

and their variability supports the distinction between the two constructs. Confirmed hypotheses indicated that greater state instability was related to higher levels of appearance investment, both in terms of Self-Evaluative Salience and Motivational Salience, to the greater use of coping with body image threats by appearance fixing, and to more disturbed eating attitudes. State variability was related neither to dispositional body image satisfaction or dysphoria, nor to coping by avoidance or positive rational acceptance. Three variables were predictive of both poorer levels and more instability of body image states—body image investment for self-evaluation, body image coping by altering or concealing one’s appearance, and the endorsement of dysfunctional eating attitudes. The former two variables predicted state instability independent of average state levels. Furthermore, multiple regression analysis indicated that greater eating pathology on the EAT-26 was significantly related to lower levels of both trait and state body satisfaction and greater fluctuations in body image states. The ASI-R Motivational Salience subscale was correlated with BISS variability but not BISS level. Thus, while women who are motivated to attend to their appearance do not differ on average in their state body image evaluations, they do experience more variability in body image states. Cash, Jakatdar, et al. (2004) and Cash, Melnyk, et al. (2004) reported that attending to one’s appearance and engaging in grooming behaviors to increase feelings of attractiveness (i.e., “taking pride” in one’s looks) may be neither inherently adaptive nor maladaptive. The value placed on being attractive might impact current appraisals of one’s appearance at different times but not on a consistent or continual basis. In contrast, schematic investment in one’s appearance for self-definition or identity (ASI-R Self-Evaluative Salience) reflects greater vulnerability, both to more dysphoric body image states and to greater fluctuations in one’s body image experiences (Cash et al., 2002; Cash, Jakatdar, et al., 2004; Cash, Melnyk, et al., 2004). This finding is also consistent with research indicating that self-esteem instability in greater among persons who place more importance on certain self-evaluations (e.g., Kernis et al., 1993) in defined self-worth. Engaging in certain maladaptive coping strategies when one’s body image is threatened is proposed to perpetuate less favorable body image states (Cash,

S.E. Melnyk et al. / Body Image 1 (2004) 225–235

2002a, 2002b; Cash et al., 2003). Maladaptive coping strategies include individuals’ attempts to avoid the threat or the emotions associated with that threat and efforts to fix their appearance by concealing or camouflaging the physical feature they perceive as flawed. Conversely, adaptive coping (e.g., by positive rational acceptance) should lead women to be more accepting of their appearance, which results in more favorable body image states. Cash et al. (2003) observed that women who utilize adaptive coping strategies more, and maladaptive strategies less, experience less body image dysphoria, are less appearance schematic, and report a more favorable body image quality of life. In the current study, women were asked to focus on their appearance twice-a-day, which for some might have been a body image threat. Women who typically use maladaptive coping strategies might have a more difficult time with current body image appraisals when asked to focus on their appearance. For one, they may not be able to avoid the situation, or secondly, they may begin to dwell on their perceived physical flaws and thoughts about how to remedy them. At times these women may shift to experience more favorable body image states, especially if they feel they are/were able to conceal or camouflage their flaws. Accordingly, the appearance fixing coping strategy may entail more body image state variability. The research literature clearly indicates that women with eating disorders manifest attitudinal and perceptual body image disturbances (Cash & Deagle, 1997; Garner, 2002; Stice, 2002a). Indeed, body dissatisfaction is a confirmed predisposing risk factor as well as a maintenance factor for eating pathology (Stice, 2002b). Most of this research has focused on trait body dissatisfaction and, to a lesser degree, investment in weight/shape for self-evaluation. Body image variability in real-life, day-to-day contexts has been largely unexplored. Our data suggest that eating pathology as assessed by the EAT-26 was significantly related to more negative and unstable body image experiences. Additional exploratory analyses indicated that the BISS mean but not its variability was correlated with BMI. The fact that heavier women reported less favorable average body image states is consistent with the substantial literature on body image and weight among women (Schwartz & Brownell, 2002, 2004). In another analysis, we found no significant difference between White and African

233

American women’s average body image states or the variability of these states. This finding is inconsistent with evidence that African American women have greater trait body image satisfaction than do White women (Celio, Zabinski, & Wilfley, 2002). While this disparity suggests that body image states differ from dispositional body image, our somewhat surprising finding certainly requires further study. The post-study questionnaire asked participants to self-rate their extent of body image fluctuation during the period of the study. A reliable convergence between self-reported and actual body image fluctuation was observed. Women who reported less (more) body image fluctuation did indeed have lower (higher) BISS variability during the study. However, while significant, the correlation of 0.39 indicates the measures are not interchangeable. Participants’ confidence in the accuracy of their BISS reports supports the validity of these observations. Limitations and implications for future research From the initial sample, 27% of the participants were lost because of noncompliance with the study’s phone-in criteria. Analyses revealed better compliance by somewhat older, perhaps more mature, women. Fortunately, because noncompliance was not related to any of the pretest trait measures, our resultant sample was unlikely biased on those variables. Future researchers should address the issue of compliance when designing their studies. The computerized date/time coding of telephonic data responses was useful in identifying protocol-variant entries. Moreover, this methodology is likely superior to one in which participants are trusted to accurately report when they record written daily survey responses that are submitted at the end of the study. Numerous directions are apparent for research on the intra-individual variability of day-to-day body image experiences. Our study did not attempt to assess day-to-day body image states in relation to particular events that might challenge some persons’ experiences. Rather, we asked participants to convey their states within morning and evening time frames. Therefore, we likely underestimated intra-individual state variability. Future studies should pinpoint more specific contexts for state appraisals, such as before and after food consumption, grooming regimens, physi-

234

S.E. Melnyk et al. / Body Image 1 (2004) 225–235

cal exercise, certain interpersonal events, etc. Target populations include males, noncollege students, and racially diverse samples. Moreover, clinical samples should be investigated—for example, persons who are physically disabled or disfigured (Rumsey & Harcourt, 2004; Rybarczyk & Behel, 2002), patients with eating disorders (Cash & Deagle, 1997; Garner, 2002; Stice, 2002a) or obesity (Schwartz & Brownell, 2004), and those with body dysmorphic disorder (Olivardia, 2004; Phillips, 2002). The assessment of body image states and state variability has potential value in the treatment and prevention of negative body image. Monitoring body image thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as in vivo homework is an integral aspect of cognitive-behavioral interventions for body image improvement (Cash, 1997; Cash & Hrabosky, 2004). Not only does this assessment serve to elucidate individuals’ unique body image experiences in daily life, it may act as a catalyst for change. For example, Cash and Hrabosky (2003) found that a systematic self-monitoring of body image states, accompanied by psychoeducational information, may promote favorable body image changes. As Cash and Pruzinsky (2002) have maintained, “Progress needs to be made in balancing the needs of clinicians and researchers for context-specific [state] body image assessments and assessments that evaluate generalized, dispositional dispositional dimensions of body image” (pp. 512–513).

References Amorose, A. J. (2001). Intra-individual variability of selfevaluations in the physical domain: Prevalence, consequences, and antecedents. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 23, 222–244. Brown, T. A., Cash, T. F., & Mikulka, P. J. (1990). Attitudinal body image assessment: Factor analysis of the Body–Self Relations Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 135–144. Cash, T. F. (1994). Body-image attitudes: Evaluation, investment, and effect. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 1168–1170. Cash, T. F. (1997). The body image workbook. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger. Cash, T. F. (2002a). Beyond traits: Assessing body image states. In T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 163–170). New York: Guilford Press. Cash, T. F. (2002b). Cognitive-behavioral perspectives on body image. In T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A

handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 38–46). New York: Guilford Press. Cash, T. F. (2002c). The Situational Inventory Of Body-Image Dysphoria: Psychometric evidence and development of a short form. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 32, 362–366. Cash, T. F. (2004). Body-image assessments and manuals. Available from the author’s website at http://www.bodyimages.com. Cash, T. F., & Deagle III, E.A. (1997). The nature and extent of body image disturbances in anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 22, 107–125. Cash, T. F., Fleming, E. C., Alindogan, J., Steadman, L., & Whitehead, A. (2002). Beyond body image as a trait: The development and validation of the Body Image States Scale. Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment and Prevention, 10, 103–113. Cash, T. F., & Hrabosky, J. I. (2003). The effects of psychoeducation and self-monitoring in a cognitive-behavioral program for body-image improvement. Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment and Prevention, 11, 209–225. Cash, T. F., & Hrabosky, J. I. (2004). Treatment of body image disturbances. In J. K. Thompson (Ed.), Handbook of eating disorders and obesity (pp. 515–541). New York: Wiley. Cash, T. F., Jakatdar, T. A., & Williams, E. F. (2004). The Body Image Quality of Life Inventory: Further validation with college men and women. Body Image: An International Journal of Research, 1, 279–287. Cash, T. F., & Labarge, A. S. (1996). Development of the Appearance Schemas Inventory: A new cognitive body-image assessment. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 20, 37–50. Cash, T. F., Melnyk, S. E., & Hrabosky, J. I. (2004). The assessment of body image investment: An extensive revision of the Appearance Schemas Inventory. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 35, 305–316. Cash, T. F., & Pruzinsky, T. (2002). Future challenges for body image theory, research, and clinical practice. In T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 509–516). New York: Guilford Press. Cash, T. F., Santos, M. T., & Williams, E. F. (in press). Coping with body-image threats and challenges: Validation of the Body Image Coping Strategies Inventory, Journal of Psychosomatic Research. Celio, A. A., Zabinski, M. F., & Wilfley, D. E. (2002). African American body images. In T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 234–241). New York: Guilford Press. Feingold, A., & Mazzella, R. (1998). Gender differences in body image are increasing. Psychological Science, 9, 190–195. Franzoi, S. L., Kessenich, J. J., & Sugrue, P. A. (1989). Gender differences in the experience if body awareness: An experiential sampling study. Sex Roles, 21, 499–515. Garner, D. M. (2002). Body image and anorexia nervosa. In T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 295–303). New York: Guilford Press.

S.E. Melnyk et al. / Body Image 1 (2004) 225–235 Garner, D. M., Olmsted, M. P., Bohr, Y., & Garfinkel, P. E. (1982). The Eating Attitudes Test: Psychometric features and clinical correlates. Psychological Medicine, 12, 871–878. Greenier, K. D., Kernis, M. H., McNamara, C. W., Waschull, S. B., Berry, A. J., & Herlocker, C. E. et al., (1999). Individual differences in reactivity to daily events: Examining the roles of stability and level of self-esteem. Journal of Personality, 67, 185–208. Groesz, L. M., Levine, M. P., & Murnen, S. K. (2002). The effect of experimental presentation of thin media images on body satisfaction: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 31, 1–16. Janda, L. H., Janda, M., & Tedford, E. (2001). IVR test and survey: A computer program to collect data via computerized telephonic applications. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 33, 513–516. Kernis, M. H., Cornell, D. P., Sun, C., Berry, A., & Harlow, T. (1993). There’s more to self-esteem than whether it is high or low: The importance of stability of self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1190–1204. Kernis, M. H., Greenier, K. D., Herlocker, C. E., Whisenhunt, C. R., & Abend, T. A. (1997). Self-perceptions of reactions to doing well or poorly: The roles of stability and level of self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 845– 854. Kernis, M. H., Whisenhunt, C. R., Waschull, S. B., Greenier, K. D., Berry, A. J., & Herlocker, C. E. (1998). Multiple facets of self-esteem and their relations to depressive symptoms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 657–669. Muth, J. L., & Cash, T. F. (1997). Body-image attitudes: What difference does gender make? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1438–1452. Olivardia, R. (2004). Body dysmorphic disorder. In J. K. Thompson (Ed.), Handbook of eating disorders and obesity (pp. 542–561). New York: Wiley. Paradise, A. W., & Kernis, M. H. (2002). Self-esteem and psychological well-being: Implications of fragile self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21, 345–361. Phillips, K.A. (2002). Body image and body dysmorphic disorder. In T.F. Cash, T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body Image: A handbook

235

of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 312–321). New York: Guilford Press. Rumsey, N., & Harcourt, D. (2004). Body image and disfigurement: Issues and interventions. Body Image: An International Journal of Research, 1, 83–97. Rybarczyk, B. D., & Behel, J. M. (2002). Rehabilitation medicine and body image. In T. F. Cash, T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 304–311). New York: Guilford Press. Schwartz, M. B., & Brownell, K. D. (2002). Obesity and body image. In T. F. Cash, T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 200–209). New York: Guilford Press. Schwartz, M. B., & Brownell, K. D. (2004). Obesity and body image. Body Image: An International Journal of Research, 1, 43–56. Stice, E. (2002a). Body image and bulimia nervosa. In T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 304–311). New York: Guilford Press. Stice, E. (2002b). Risk and maintenance factor for eating pathology: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 825–848. Thompson, J. K., & van den Berg, P. (2002). Measuring body image attitudes among adolescents and adults. In T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 142–154). New York: Guilford. Tiggemann, M. (2001). Person x situation interactions in body dissatisfaction. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 29, 65–70. Tiggemann, M. (2002). Media influences on body image development. In T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 91–98). New York: Guilford Press. Williamson, D. A., Stewart, T. M., White, M. A., & York-Crowe, E. (2002). An information-processing perspective on body image. In T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 47–54). New York: Guilford Press.