- Email: [email protected]
Shopping for clothes: Body satisfaction, appearance investment, and functions of clothing among female shoppers
Body Image 6 (2009) 285–291
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Body Image journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bodyimage
Shopping for clothes: Body satisfaction, appearance investment, and functions of clothing among female shoppers Marika Tiggemann *, Catherine Lacey School of Psychology, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history: Received 13 February 2009 Received in revised form 3 July 2009 Accepted 3 July 2009
The present study aimed to investigate the link between clothing and body experience in women of different ages. Participants were 162 female clothes shoppers between the ages of 18 and 55 who completed questionnaire measures of body image, functions of clothing, self-esteem, and enjoyment of clothes shopping. It was found that clothing was worn primarily for assurance and fashion by women of all ages. On the other hand, BMI and body dissatisfaction were related to the use of clothing for camouflage purposes and to a more negative clothes shopping experience. Both components of appearance investment were related to choice of clothes for fashion and assurance. However, the selfevaluative salience component was negatively related, while the motivational salience was positively related, to enjoyment of clothes shopping. It was concluded that although clothing is an underresearched aspect of body image, it represents an important part of women’s appearance management, whatever their age. ß 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Clothing functions Body image Appearance investment Shopping for clothes
Introduction Although body image is a complex and multifaceted construct encompassing many aspects of body experience (Cash & Pruzinsky, 1990), in contemporary society the major research focus has been on body shape and weight. In this, other important contributors to body experience have been relatively neglected. In particular, as pointed out by Cash (1990), few studies have addressed the role of everyday appearance-management behaviours such as hair-style or dress in women’s body image. Thus a common perception seems to be that the body image construct refers to the unclothed body as opposed to the clothed body (Rudd & Lennon, 2000). On the other hand, there is a large and complex existing literature on the role of clothes in general, in what has come to be referred to as the ‘‘clothing and textile field’’ (Beach, Kincade, & Schofield-Tomschin, 2005). This interdisciplinary field draws together research from the perspectives of philosophy, anthropology, social psychology, sociology, and cultural studies (Entwistle & Wilson, 2001). Clothes are seen as serving individual, social, and physical human needs, as well as offering cultural representations and art forms (Kaiser, 1997). Research focuses on the social meaning of clothes, which are conceptualized as actively
* Corresponding author at: School of Psychology, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia. E-mail address: Marika.Tiggemann@flinders.edu.au (M. Tiggemann). 1740-1445/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.07.002
embedded within social relations and as ‘‘the insignia by which we are read and come to read others’’ (Entwistle, 2000, p. 35). Thus the clothes we wear can be expressive of identity, telling others something about our gender, class, status, or consumer attitudes (e.g., Kaiser, Chandler, & Hammidi, 2001). Perhaps surprisingly, there is very little overlap between contemporary research in this field (clothing and textiles) and the body image field. The present study focuses on the relationship between the functions of clothing and body image in adult women. Perhaps the primary reason that the role of clothing has been relatively neglected in the body image research thus far is that clothes, and in particular fashion, are seen as ‘‘frivolous, trivial, and inconsequential’’, and hence unworthy of serious study (Frith & Gleeson, 2004). In addition, the majority of existing body image research has drawn from college samples and so is confined to a very narrow age range, for whom body shape and weight may be prepotent. It has been suggested, however, that clothing and other appearancemanagement behaviours may become increasingly salient for women as they age (Jackson & O’Neal, 1994; Tiggemann, 2004), providing a means of secondary or cognitive control of the inevitable and largely uncontrollable ageing-related changes in the body (Webster & Tiggemann, 2003). More generally, clothing is different from other aspects of body image (such as weight and shape) because it is to a large extent controllable (although limited by price and availability). The act of dressing clearly represents intentional behaviour. Indeed, women choose what to wear every single day of their lives. Nevertheless, the wearing of clothes is
286
M. Tiggemann, C. Lacey / Body Image 6 (2009) 285–291
definitionally an embodied practice, and hence body and clothing are inexorably linked. The overarching aim of the present study was to investigate aspects of body image and clothing function, as well as their link, across the young adult and middle-aged portion of the female life span (18–55 years). With respect to body image, Cash (2002) has distinguished two components: body evaluation (how satisfied or dissatisfied with the body one is), and body investment (the cognitive, behavioural and emotional importance of the body for self-evaluation). A number of commentators (e.g., Grogan, 2008; Tiggemann, 2004) have concluded that the former component, body dissatisfaction, remains remarkably stable across the entire female life span. As yet there is little direct evidence on the investment component, but some findings that variables like importance of appearance (Pliner, Chaiken, & Flett, 1990), appearance orientation (Cash, Winstead, & Janda, 1986), and self-objectification (McKinley, 1999; Tiggemann & Lynch, 2001) decrease with increasing age. In support, the relationship between body dissatisfaction and self-esteem is much weaker in older than young adult women (Webster & Tiggemann, 2003). More recently, Cash, Melnyk, and Hrabosky (2004) have differentiated two forms of appearance investment: self-evaluative salience which reflects the extent to which one’s appearance is integral to self-worth, and motivational salience which reflects the effort invested in maintaining or improving one’s appearance. The former (self-evaluative salience) has been found to be a more dysfunctional form of investment, correlated with lower selfesteem (Cash, Melnyk, et al., 2004), poorer body image quality of life (Cash, Jakatdar, & Williams, 2004), and the use of avoidant body image coping strategies (Cash, Santos, & Williams, 2005). In contrast, motivational salience is not correlated with these negative outcomes. Thus it seems that the motivation to attend to one’s appearance and to engage in appearance-enhancing behaviours is relatively benign. Together, the above findings lead to the prediction that particularly the self-evaluative salience aspect of appearance investment will decrease with age. Given both the physical differences and likely differences in approach to their body, younger and older women may also differ in their approach to clothing. In particular, they may select clothing for different purposes. Any casual scan of women walking down the street or perusal through any fashion magazine reveals that clothing may fulfil motivations beyond warmth and simple coverage of the body in public. More generally, the social psychology of clothing indicates that clothes serve multiple functions for individuals, including fashion, presentation of a particular image, and self-enhancement, functions which are likely to vary in importance according to the social context (Kaiser, 1997). For example, there is a general stereotype that fashion is defined and led by the young, and that middle-aged individuals are not interested in fashion (Damhorst, 1999). As a result, current trends and styles of fashion are most often promoted by young models and celebrities whom young women then seek to emulate (Shorter, Brown, Quinton, & Hinton, 2008), and thus older women may be less likely to choose clothes on the basis of fashion. Instead, to the extent that clothing is used as an appearance-management technique to ameliorate the impact of a visibly ageing body, older women might be expected to use clothing more for both concealment and self-enhancement purposes. Qualitative accounts (e.g., Damhorst, 1999) document the complex relationship that older women have with their clothes (e.g., the worry of being seen as ‘‘mutton dressed as lamb’’). As yet, there has been little systematic examination of how women’s clothing choices differ across age. Likewise, the potential link between body image and clothing preferences has been little addressed in adult women. Indeed, only a handful of studies have investigated this link in college samples
(Frith & Gleeson, 2004). Earlier studies focused on clothing interest, that is, general enjoyment of, and interest and investment in, clothes (Kaiser, 1997). Clothing interest was found to be inversely correlated with public self-consciousness (Kwon, 1992; Miller, Davis, & Rowold, 1982; Solomon & Schopler, 1982), but not perceived body build (Davis, 1985) or body consciousness (Kwon, 1992). The latter author concluded that all women are likely to be socialized to place emphasis on clothes and fashion on an everyday basis, which makes it difficult to distinguish between them on the basis of interest in clothing. In a later study, however, Harden, Butler, and Scheetz (1998) showed that women with higher satisfaction with body image chose clothing that accentuated the body and those with lower satisfaction selected concealing clothing. Consistent with this finding, Kwon and Parham (1994) have shown that in a ‘‘fat’’ state, clothes are selected more for camouflage, and less for individuality, than in a ‘‘more slender’’ state. Finally, Rudd and Lennon’s (2000) qualitative study of body image indicated that clothing was spontaneously mentioned as a strategy to camouflage some aspect of the body, or as a means of self-expression, by around 30% of their sample of college women. Other accounts by ‘‘fat’’ women document the difficulties they have in finding appropriate clothes (Miller, 1980). These results lead to the prediction that body image will be related to the use of clothing for different functions. In particular, it is predicted that high BMI and body dissatisfaction will be related to using clothes to conceal or camouflage unacceptable parts of the body. In contrast, women who are satisfied with their bodies are likely to use clothes for enhancement of the body and self. A secondary aim of the study was to assess the contribution of age and body image to the quality of the clothes shopping experience in general. Some authors have argued that fashion and shopping have become a lifestyle for women in affluent Western societies (Banim, Green, & Guy, 2001). Certainly anecdotal evidence suggests that shopping is used by many women as a way to improve mood and for enjoyment, a result captured in the term ‘‘retail therapy’’. However, anecdotal evidence also suggests that shopping for and trying on bathers (swimsuits) results in an almost universally distressing experience for women. In fact, there are many aspects of shopping for clothes that may detract from the enjoyment of the activity, especially for women who are heavier and who have negative feelings about themselves or their body. First, the experience essentially revolves around what size a person is, whether or not the clothes fit, and whether or not the clothes look good. Thus shopping will inevitably prove a disappointing experience for women who cannot find a garment that fits or suits them. Second, the very process of trying on clothing involves closer than normal scrutiny of both their near-naked and clothed body in a dressing room equipped with a full length mirror and bright lighting. Experimental research has indicated that these conditions can lead to a state of self-objectification and feelings of body shame and anxiety (e.g., Fredrickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, & Twenge, 1998). Third, most likely there will be posters of models wearing the latest arrival stock displayed around the store, and certainly mannequins modelling the fashions in very small sizes. Metaanalyses (Grabe, Ward, & Hyde, 2008; Groesz, Levine, & Murnen, 2002) have demonstrated that exposure to such thin idealized images leads to lower mood and body satisfaction. Hence, for many women, shopping for and trying on clothes may simply serve as a potent reminder that their body is not ‘‘right’’. In particular, it is predicted that women with high BMI or body dissatisfaction will not find shopping for clothes enjoyable. In sum, the present study aimed to investigate aspects of body image (both evaluation and investment), clothing functions, selfesteem, and enjoyment of clothes shopping across a reasonable portion of the female adult life span. The particular focus was on the inter-relationships between body image and clothing functions.
M. Tiggemann, C. Lacey / Body Image 6 (2009) 285–291
Method Participants Participants were a convenience sample of 162 female shoppers between the ages of 18 and 55 years (M = 30.41, SD = 11.45) recruited from a clothing store in a middle to high class area of metropolitan Adelaide, South Australia. The store carries casual, business and formal wear, but not bathing suits or underwear. Mean Body Mass Index (BMI) was 23.1 (SD = 4.0). According to standard cut-offs (Garrow & Webster, 1985), 20.9% of the participants could be categorized as underweight (BMI < 20), 57.5% as normal weight (20 < BMI < 25), and 21.6% as overweight (BMI > 25). This last category included 6.1% who were obese (BMI > 30). Measures The questionnaire (entitled ‘Your clothing and you!’) included background questions about participants’ age, height, weight, clothing size, and frequency of shopping. The questionnaire also contained the following measures (in order): functions of clothing, appearance investment, self-esteem, body satisfaction, clothing satisfaction, and enjoyment of clothes shopping. Functions of clothing Functions of clothing were assessed by a selection of items from those used by Kwon and Parham (1994) to compare ‘‘slender’’ and ‘‘fat’’ states (those items that loaded on their factors in both ‘states’). Participants were asked to rate 15 potential functions of clothing on 5-point Likert scales (from 1 = ‘strongly disagree’, to 5 = ‘strongly agree’) in response to the stem ‘‘I tend to select. . .’’ Items ranged across five categories: fashion (e.g., ‘‘clothes that are fashionable’’), comfort (e.g., ‘‘clothes that are comfortable’’), camouflage (e.g., ‘‘clothes that camouflage my figure problems’’), assurance (e.g., ‘‘clothes which boost my morale’’), and individuality (e.g., ‘‘clothes that make me distinctive’’). Body satisfaction Body satisfaction was assessed by the widely used Body Areas Satisfaction Scale, a subscale of the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire (Cash, 2000). Participants rate their level of satisfaction with nine aspects of their bodies (e.g., ‘‘face’’, ‘‘midtorso (waist, stomach)’’) on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = ‘very dissatisfied’, 5 = ‘very satisfied’). Ratings are summed and averaged to produce an overall level of body satisfaction. Resulting scores range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. Cash (2000) reported adequate internal reliability for the scale for women (a = .73). More recently, Giovannelli, Cash, Henson, and Engle (2008) have reported higher reliability (a = .83). In the present sample, reliability was similar (a = .80). Clothing satisfaction Two items (‘‘clothing’’ and ‘‘appearance in clothing’’) were appended to the Body Areas Satisfaction Scale to directly ask participants their usual level of satisfaction with their clothes (using the same format). Thus resulting scores again ranged between 1 and 5. Internal reliability was again good (a = .80). Appearance investment Investment in appearance was assessed by the Appearance Schemas Inventory-Revised (ASI-R) developed by Cash, Melnyk, et al. (2004). This 20-item scale assesses beliefs or assumptions about the importance, meaning, and influence of appearance in one’s life, and consists of two subscales. Self-Evaluative Salience (12 items) refers to the extent to which one’s appearance is
287
important to self-worth. Motivational Salience (8 items) refers to the motivation invested in maintaining or improving one’s appearance. Participants rate their agreement with a series of statements about appearance (e.g., ‘‘What I look like is an important part of who I am’’, ‘‘I try to be as physically attractive as I can be’’) on 5-point Likert scales (1 = ‘strongly disagree’, 5 = ‘strongly agree’). Items are scored in the direction of high appearance investment, and then summed and averaged, so that resulting scores range between 1 and 5. Cash, Melnyk, et al. (2004) reported good internal reliability for women for both subscales (as = .82, .90). Cash and Grasso (2005) reported 2-week test–retest reliability coefficients of .88 and .78, respectively. In the present sample, reliability was clearly acceptable (Self-Evaluative Salience a = .87; Motivational Salience a = .79). Self-esteem Self-esteem was measured by the Bachman and O’Malley (1977) adaptation of the Rosenberg (1965) Self-Esteem Scale. Participants rate the accuracy of 10 statements concerning their beliefs about themselves (e.g., ‘‘I am a useful person to have around’’) on 5-point Likert scales (1 = ‘never’ to 5 = ‘always’). Responses on individual items were summed to indicate each participant’s overall level of self-esteem, with scores ranging between 10 and 50 and higher scores indicating higher selfesteem. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale has high internal consistency of .88 (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991). A similarly high reliability was found in the present sample (a = .89). Enjoyment of clothes shopping A measure of the positiveness of the general experience of shopping for clothes was developed for the current study. Participants were asked to rate their agreement with five statements (e.g., ‘‘I often find clothes shopping a negative experience (R)’’, using a Likert scale (1 = ‘strongly disagree’, 5 = ‘strongly agree’). The complete list of items is provided in Appendix A. Items were scored in the positive direction and summed and averaged to produce a score ranging between 1 and 5. This scale was found to have high internal reliability (a = .85). Procedure Women shoppers were invited to participate in the study via a poster and an information letter on the store counter, situated in the middle of the store. Interested participants were given a questionnaire which they completed either in the store or at home in their own time, and then returned by post in a sealed reply-paid envelope. Participants who wished were entered into a raffle for a clothing store voucher. Of 280 questionnaires distributed, 162 were returned, representing a response rate of 58%. Results Characteristics of the sample On average, women in the sample reported shopping for clothing around once a fortnight (M = 3.2, SD = 1.4). Their clothes size ranged from 7 to 18 (Australian sizing) with a mean size of 10.8 (SD = 2.4). Participants’ mean body satisfaction score of 3.29 (SD = 0.62) was almost identical to that of the normative score of several combined samples of United States women (M = 3.23, SD = 0.74; Cash, 2000). Similarly, their overall mean appearance investment score (M = 3.49, SD = 0.59) closely resembled that of a college sample of white American women (M = 3.53, SD = 0.62; Cash, Melnyk, et al., 2004). For the specific subscales, mean selfevaluative salience here (M = 3.24, SD = 0.71) was very similar to
M. Tiggemann, C. Lacey / Body Image 6 (2009) 285–291
288
Table 1 Factor loadings and mean ratings of functions of clothing.
Table 2 Correlations between age and BMI with body image and clothing variables.
Component 1 Boost morale Feel better Sure of self Self-confidence Flattering Fashionable Stylish Impress people Camouflage Loose No attention Exciting Distinctive Unusual Comfortable
Mean rating 2
.77 .86 .83 .80 .60 .04 .23 .09 .37 .05 .05 .07 .29 .03 .07
3 .02 .08 .00 .13 .24 .77 .72 .71 .10 .09 .12 .39 .14 .06 .37
4 .03 .05 .08 .08 .11 .10 .15 .06 .68 .82 .74 .19 .16 .13 .37
.10 .01 .08 .01 .10 .12 .16 .02 .18 .05 .09 .60 .79 .87 .34
3.5 3.7 3.7 4.1 4.5 3.6 4.0 3.3 3.2 2.4 2.9 3.1 3.1 2.6 3.9
Note: Factor loadings >.5 are in bold.
that of several combined samples of American female college students (M = 3.29, SD = 0.72; Cash & Grasso, 2005). On the other hand, motivational salience (M = 3.85, SD = 0.63) was a little higher than the normative sample (M = 3.66, SD = 0.67). Functions of clothing As can be seen in Table 1 which displays the means for each of the reasons for selecting clothes, most reasons were moderately rated (above mid-point of 3), indicating that clothing can serve a variety of functions. The most highly rated item was choosing clothes that are flattering to the figure, followed by clothes that give self-confidence and are stylish and comfortable. A principal components analysis (followed by varimax rotation) was conducted. The scree plot and eigenvalues (>1) indicated four clear factors. The resulting factor loadings are presented in Table 1. The first factor (eigenvalue = 3.68) accounted for 24.5% of the variance and contained five items clearly tapping the assurance function of clothes (e.g., ‘‘clothes that give me self-confidence’’). The second factor (eigenvalue = 2.52, 16.8% of variance) contained three items related to fashion (e.g., ‘‘clothes that are stylish’’). The third factor (eigenvalue = 1.67, 11.1% of variance) contained three items related to the hiding or camouflage function of clothing (e.g., ‘‘loosely-fitting clothes’’), while the fourth factor (eigenvalue = 1.40, 9.4% of variance) contained three items related to individuality (e.g., ‘‘clothes that are unusual’’). The single item not to load on exactly one factor was ‘‘Clothes that are comfortable’’. To reduce the data for subsequent analyses, four corresponding scale scores were calculated by summing and averaging items that loaded on each factor, and the Comfort item was retained as a single-item scale. Internal reliabilities (a) were acceptable for scales with few items (Assurance: .84, Fashion: .66, Camouflage: .68, Individuality: .71). In terms of the factor scales, the Assurance (M = 3.9, SD = 0.7), Comfort (M = 3.9, SD = 0.8) and Fashion (M = 3.6, SD = 0.7) components were the most highly endorsed (Camouflage M = 2.8, SD = 0.9; Individuality M = 3.4, SD = 0.7). Overall clothing satisfaction (M = 3.72, SD = 0.71) was relatively high, and notably higher than body satisfaction (M = 3.29, SD = 0.62), t(161) = 9.28, p < .001. Effects of age and BMI on body image and clothing variables Table 2 provides the correlations between all variables with age, as well as with BMI. These two were themselves positively correlated, r = .21, p < .05, but produced a very different pattern of
Age Body image Body satisfaction Appearance investment (self-evaluative) Appearance investment (motivational) Clothing functions Fashion Assurance Camouflage Individuality Comfort Clothing satisfaction Self-esteem Clothes shopping enjoyment * **
BMI
.04 .27* .04
.47** .10 .13
.14 .13 .03 .06 .20* .13 .20* .04
.15 .06 .49** .05 .08 .33** .06 .51**
p < .05. p < .01.
results. For body image, it can be seen that age was not related to body satisfaction, but was related to the self-evaluative component of appearance investment. As women became older, their investment in appearance in terms of its importance to their self-worth decreased. In contrast, BMI was not related to either appearance investment component, but was negatively related to body satisfaction—the greater the BMI, the lower the body satisfaction. Age, but not BMI, was also related to increased self-esteem. For clothing functions, age was related to only the increased choice of clothing for comfort, while BMI was related to increased use of clothing for camouflage. BMI was also negatively related to clothing satisfaction and enjoyment of clothes shopping. One aspect of interest was whether BMI would have different effects at different ages. Consequently the interaction between age and BMI was tested for all variables by hierarchical multiple regression analyses in which age and BMI were entered on the first step (main effects), and their product entered on the second step. For no variable did the age BMI product term provide additional significant variance (all R2 change < .02, p > .10). Relationship between body image and clothing functions Table 3 provides the correlations between body image and clothing functions. As can be seen, the pattern for body satisfaction followed that of BMI (Table 2). Specifically, body satisfaction was negatively related to the use of clothing for camouflage. Appearance investment (both forms), on the other hand, was related to the use of clothing for fashion and assurance. In addition, self-evaluative salience was related to the use of clothes for camouflage, and motivational salience was negatively related to choosing clothes for comfort. Table 3 Correlations between body image, self-esteem and clothing functions. Clothing functions Fashion Body image Body satisfaction Appearance investment (self-evaluative) Appearance investment (motivational) Clothes satisfaction Self-esteem * **
p < .05. p < .001.
Assurance
Camouflage
Individuality
Comfort
.05 .33**
.10 .36**
.62** .31**
.15 .06
.00 .10
.43**
.25**
.05
.08
.17*
.19* .00
.01 .01
.52** .31**
.26** .18*
.10 .04
M. Tiggemann, C. Lacey / Body Image 6 (2009) 285–291 Table 4 Predictors of enjoyment of clothes shopping. Correlation (r)
Age BMI Body satisfaction Appearance investment (self-evaluative) Appearance investment (motivational) Self-esteem Fashion Assurance Camouflage Individuality Comfort * **
.04 .51** .61** .33** .12 .36** .25** .11 .52** .30** .02
Regression coefficient (b) .02 .22** .27** .31** .19* .00 .19** .03 .13 .21** .03
p < .05. p < .01.
Not surprisingly, clothing satisfaction was positively related to the use of clothes for fashion and individuality, and negatively to camouflage. Finally, self-esteem was negatively related to use of clothing for camouflage, and positively related to use for individuality. Prediction of enjoyment of clothes shopping experience The mean score of 3.07 (SD = 0.88) indicates that, on average, shopping for clothes was perceived as a neutral experience, although scores ranged across the full range from the minimum to the maximum. Table 4 provides the correlations between enjoyment of clothes shopping and other variables. It can be seen that a pleasurable shopping experience was associated with smaller BMI, greater body satisfaction, lower self-evaluative appearance investment, greater self-esteem, and more use of clothing for fashion and individuality, and less for camouflage. In order to see which of these variables offered unique prediction, a simultaneous multiple regression was conducted. This accounted for a significant 58.2% of the variance, R = .763, F(11, 136) = 17.20, p < .001. From the Beta coefficients in Table 4, it can be seen that low BMI, body satisfaction, low self-evaluative salience and high motivational salience appearance investment, and using clothes for fashion and individuality, were independent predictors of enjoying clothes shopping. Discussion The present study proved successful in demonstrating links between body image and clothing functions in a sample of adult women. Aspects of the ways women view their bodies do translate into how they choose to clothe themselves. The present results extend the small amount of often qualitative research conducted with college students in two ways. First, a more detailed analysis with psychometrically validated measures of body image was undertaken. Second, the sample consisted of a community sample of adult women across a reasonable portion of the female adult life span. With respect to body image, the findings show that the two components (evaluation, investment) responded differently to age, as predicted. Body dissatisfaction (the evaluation component) was not related to age, consistent with the conclusion of a number of commentators that body dissatisfaction is relatively stable across the female life span (Grogan, 2008; Tiggemann, 2004). The current finding replicates in an Australian sample the results of Cash and Henry’s (1995) national survey of over 800 American women with the same measure of body satisfaction (BASS). The self-evaluative salience component of appearance investment, on the other hand, was negatively correlated with age. That is, as women grow older,
289
their appearance becomes less closely tied to their sense of selfworth. Perhaps other aspects of their lives (e.g., occupational identity, motherhood) become more central (Tiggemann & Stevens, 1999), or alternatively, women may adopt cognitive strategies that increase their acceptance of their aging bodies (Webster & Tiggemann, 2003). This finding confirms previous conjecture (e.g., Tiggemann, 2004) with a psychometrically valid measure of appearance investment. The motivational salience component of appearance evaluation was not related to either age or BMI, indicating that adult women invest time and effort into their appearance at approximately the same level whatever their size or age. One particular way in which women invest in their appearance is through their choice of clothing. In some ways, it is surprising that clothing has not aroused more specific attention as an appearance-management behaviour in the body image literature, in that people make clothing selections every single day of their lives and the naked body is only rarely on display. In the present sample, many reasons for selecting clothing were highly endorsed, indicating that clothes do fulfil multiple social and other purposes (Kaiser, 1997). Specific functions identified by the factor analysis included assurance, fashion, camouflage, identity, and comfort, confirming the functions put forward by Kwon and Parham (1994). Of these, the most highly endorsed functions overall were for assurance, fashion and comfort. The first two clearly indicate that women do use clothing to manage and improve their appearance and their presentation, as well as to enhance their feelings about themselves. Further, there were few significant correlations between age and clothing function—the only one was that older women chose clothes more for comfort. But older women still chose clothes for assurance, fashion, and individuality to the same extent as younger women. Thus it seems that clothes are important to women whatever their age. However, the major aim of the present study was to investigate the link between body image and clothing function. In general, body image was a much stronger determinant of clothing practices than age. Specifically, it was demonstrated that, irrespective of age, greater BMI and body dissatisfaction were related to the use of clothing for camouflage purposes. This explicitly confirms the previous qualitative and less direct accounts of college students (Harden et al., 1998; Kwon & Parham, 1994; Rudd & Lennon, 2000). The result indicates that those women not satisfied with their body did feel the need to cover up what are perceived as imperfections. Investment in appearance (both components) was related to the use of clothing for assurance and fashion. Interestingly, the selfevaluative salience component, but not the motivational salience component, was also related to the use of clothing for camouflage. The fact that neither body dissatisfaction nor self-esteem was related to the use of clothing for fashion, assurance, or comfort, the three most highly endorsed functions, suggests that women of all levels of body satisfaction and self-esteem select clothing for these functions at similar levels. Self-esteem, however, was related to camouflage and individuality, whereby women with higher selfesteem were less likely to cover up their body and more likely to try and stand out. It may be that, in some ways, having a body that differs from the societally prescribed thin ideal (as is the case for most adult women’s bodies) presents women with a choice: either to camouflage and minimize that difference, or to accentuate and individualize the difference. The present data suggest that it may be self-esteem that determines and/or is the consequence of which choice is made. A secondary aim of the study was to investigate predictors of enjoyment of clothes shopping. Given that women in the present sample had high levels of clothing satisfaction and were relatively slim (the majority were of normal weight), it is perhaps surprising that their shopping for clothes experiences were not more positive.
290
M. Tiggemann, C. Lacey / Body Image 6 (2009) 285–291
Nevertheless, it was found that women who shopped for fashion and individuality enjoyed clothes shopping more. In contrast, bigger women with high body dissatisfaction or self-evaluative salience enjoyed shopping less. This is not surprising as shopping for clothes squarely focuses attention on women’s bodies in a number of potentially negative ways: from the bright lights and large mirrors in the dressing room, to the posters on the wall, to the size of the clothing on display and on the racks. The difficulty many larger women have in finding clothing that fits and looks good understandably makes shopping for clothes a negative experience. Furthermore, the present results are likely to underestimate the strength of these effects. Participants were by definition all women shoppers in a clothing store. Undoubtedly there are a large number of women who avoid going clothes shopping and only enter dress shops rarely. Thus it seems likely that the shopping experience does not in fact deliver ‘‘retail therapy’’ for many women. The final regression analysis to predict enjoyment of clothes shopping indicated that the self-evaluative and motivational salience components of appearance investment in fact operated in opposite directions. The extent to which appearance is central to self-worth (self-evaluative salience) was related to more negative experience of clothes shopping, while the extent to which women were motivated to attend to their appearance (motivational salience) was related to a more positive experience. Theoretically, this confirms in a new domain (clothes shopping) the suggestion that self-evaluative salience is the more maladaptive or dysfunctional form of appearance investment (Cash, Melnyk, et al., 2004; Cash & Grasso, 2005). Practically, the result indicates that there is no need for women to be dissuaded from their attempts to look attractive and enhance their appearance (if anything, these attempts should be encouraged), as long as their appearance does not become the basis for their judgements of self-worth. Given that the levels of enjoyment experienced during shopping for clothes were not high, one might ask the question as to why then do women go clothes shopping (as often as an average of once a fortnight in the present sample)? In some ways, this is a parallel question to that raised in the media literature: ‘If looking at images in fashion magazines makes women feel bad about themselves (as has been experimentally shown), then why do they continue to read and buy these magazines’? (Polivy & Herman, 2004; Tiggemann, 2005). In that context, the emerging answer appears to be for inspiration and fantasy (Mills, Polivy, Herman, & Tiggemann, 2002; Tiggemann, Polivy, & Hargreaves, 2009). Most likely shopping for clothes has the same allure—the ever-hope that one will find something which looks absolutely fabulous sustains the otherwise negative experience. In accord, Banim et al. (2001, p. 12) describe clothes shopping as ‘‘both a physical, bodily activity and an imaginary, unreal one.’’ The findings have a number of practical implications for shop owners and clothing designers. To provide a more positive experience for all women visiting their stores, shop owners should consider offering a wider range of clothing sizes and styles, as well as being mindful of the functions underlying women’s clothing choices. An effort could also be made to soften lighting in the dressing rooms and to display mannequins and posters of models of a variety of shapes and sizes when advertising the ‘looks’ sold in the store. Although the current study extended previous research and investigated factors involved in women’s selection of clothing and the enjoyment gained from shopping for clothes, there are a number of limitations. First, participants were recruited from one particular clothing store in a middle to high class area, and therefore cannot be held as representative of all shoppers, and certainly not of the general female population. In some ways, however, the potential restricted range on variables serves to strengthen the obtained results. Nevertheless, it is vital that future research sample women from other places such as shopping malls
to obtain more diversity in size, ethnicity, and socio-economic background. Second, the clothing and shopping choices of women older than 55 also warrant research attention. Third, the study did not take into account the specific shopping experience, e.g., whether the woman had just tried on something (successfully or unsuccessfully). Future research might usefully analyse components of the shopping experience in more detail. Finally, as a correlational study, the results demonstrate a link between body image and clothing variables, but not a casual model. While it seems more logical that body image evaluation and investment will impact on clothing practices, it is also likely that various clothing choices or shopping experiences will influence how women feel about their bodies. Only experimental or longitudinal research could come to more definitive conclusions. Despite these limitations, the present study was able to clearly demonstrate a link between body image and clothing functions in a sample of adult women. There is little doubt that the selection of clothing represents an important appearance-management behaviour for women of all ages in Western societies, one that warrants further research in the context of body image. Appendix A Items for enjoyment of clothes shopping 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
I usually find clothes shopping a positive experience Trying clothes on makes me feel good about myself I often find clothes shopping a negative experience (R) Trying on clothes makes me feel good about my body Trying on clothes makes me conscious of my weight (R)
References Bachman, J. G., & O’Malley, P. M. (1977). Self-esteem in young men: A longitudinal analysis of the impact of educational and occupational attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 365–380. Banim, M., Green, E., & Guy, A. (2001). Introduction. In A. Guy, E. Green, & M. Banim (Eds.), Through the wardrobe (pp. 1–17). Oxford, UK: Berg. Beach, J. L., Kincade, D. H., & Schofield-Tomschin, S. (2005). Human complexity: Development of a theoretical framework for the clothing and textile field. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 23, 28–44. Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. Vol. 1 (pp.115–160). New York: Academic Press Cash, T. F. (1990). The psychology of physical apearance: Aesthetics, attributes, and images. In T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body images: Development, deviance, and change (pp. 51–79). New York: Guilford press. Cash, T. F. (2000). User’s manual for the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire. Available from the author at www.body-images.com. Cash, T. F. (2002). Body image: Cognitive behavioral perspectives on body image. In T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body images: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 38–46). New York: Guilford Press. Cash, T. F., & Grasso, K. (2005). The norms and stability of new measures of the multidimensional body image construct. Body Image, 2, 199–203. Cash, T. F., & Henry, P. E. (1995). Women’s body images: The results of a national survey in the USA. Sex Roles, 33, 19–28. 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, 1, 279–287. 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. (Eds.). (1990). Body images: Development, deviance and change. New York: Guilford Press. Cash, T. F., Santos, M. T., & Williams, E. F. (2005). Coping with body-image threats and challenges: Validation of the Body Image Coping Strategies Inventory. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 58, 191–199. Cash, T. F., Winstead, B. A., & Janda, L. H. (1986). Body image survey report: The great American shape-up. Psychology Today, 19, 30–37. Damhorst, M. L. (1999). Dressing through adulthood. In M. L. Damhorst, K. A. Miller, & S. O. Michelman (Eds.), The meanings of dress (pp. 328–370). New York: Fairchild. Davis, L. L. (1985). Perceived somatotype, body-cathexis, and attitudes towards clothing among college females. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1199–1205. Entwistle, J. (2000). The fashioned body. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Entwistle, J., & Wilson, E. (Eds.). (2001). Body dressing. Oxford, UK: Berg. Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T. A., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 269–284.
.
M. Tiggemann, C. Lacey / Body Image 6 (2009) 285–291 Frith, H., & Gleeson, K. (2004). Clothing and embodiment: Men managing body image and appearance. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 5, 40–48. Garrow, J. S., & Webster, B. S. (1985). Quetelet’s Index (W/H2) as a measure of fatness. International Journal of Obesity, 9, 147–153. Giovannelli, T. S., Cash, T. F., Henson, J. M., & Engle, E. K. (2008). The measurement of body-image dissatisfaction–satisfaction: Is rating importance important? Body Image, 5, 216–223. Grabe, S., Ward, L. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2008). The role of the media in body image concerns among women: A meta-analysis of experimental and correlational studies. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 460–476. 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. Grogan, S. (2008). Body image (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Harden, A. J., Butler, S., & Scheetz, M. (1998). Body perceptions of bulimic and nonbulimic groups. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87, 108–110. Jackson, H. O., & O’Neal, G. S. (1994). Dress and appearance responses to perceptions of aging. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 12, 8–15. Kaiser, S. B. (1997). The social psychology of clothing: Symbolic appearances in context (2nd ed. rev). New York: Fairchild. Kaiser, S., Chandler, J., & Hammidi, T. (2001). Minding appearances in female academic culture. In A. Guy, E. Green, & M. Banim (Eds.), Through the wardrobe (pp. 117–136). Oxford, UK: Berg. Kwon, Y. H. (1992). Body consciousness, self-consciousness, and women’s attitudes toward clothing practices. Social Behavior and Personality, 20, 295–307. Kwon, Y. H., & Parham, E. S. (1994). Effects of state of fatness perception on weight conscious women’s clothing practices. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 12, 16–21. McKinley, N. M. (1999). Women and objectified body consciousness: Mothers’ and daughters’ body experience in cultural, developmental and familial context. Developmental Psychology, 35, 760–769. Miller, F. G., Davis, L. L., & Rowold, K. L. (1982). Public self-consciousness, social anxiety, and attitudes toward the use of clothing. Home Economics Research Journal, 10, 363–368.
291
Miller, M. (1980). Such a pretty face: Being fat in America. New York: Norton. Mills, J. S., Polivy, J., Herman, C. P., & Tiggemann, M. (2002). Effects of exposure to thin media images: Evidence of self-enhancement among restrained eaters. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1687–1699. Pliner, P., Chaiken, S., & Flett, G. L. (1990). Gender differences in concern with body weight and physical appearance over the life span. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 263–273. Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (2004). Sociocultural idealization of thin female body shapes: An introduction to the special issue on body image and eating disorders. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 1–6. Rudd, N. A., & Lennon, S. J. (2000). Body image and appearance-management behaviours in college women. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 18, 152– 162. Shorter, L., Brown, S. L., Quinton, S. J., & Hinton, L. (2008). Relationships between bodyshape discrepancies with favored celebrities and disordered eating in young women. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1364–1377. Solomon, M. R., & Schopler, J. (1982). Self-consciousness and clothing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 508–514. Tiggemann, M. (2004). Dietary restraint and self-esteem as predictors of weight gain over an 8-year time period. Eating Behaviors, 5, 251–259. Tiggemann, M. (2005). The state of body image research in clinical and social psychology. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 1202–1210. Tiggemann, M., & Lynch, J. E. (2001). Body image across the life span in adult women: The role of self-objectification. Developmental Psychology, 37, 243– 253. Tiggemann, M., Polivy, J., & Hargreaves, D. (2009). The processing of thin ideals in fashion magazines: A source of social comparison or fantasy? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28, 73–93. Tiggemann, M., & Stevens, C. (1999). Weight concern across the life-span: Relationship to self-esteem and feminist identity. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 26, 103–106. Webster, J., & Tiggemann, M. (2003). The relationship between women’s body satisfaction and self-image across the life span: The role of cognitive control. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164, 241–252.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Body Image journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bodyimage
Shopping for clothes: Body satisfaction, appearance investment, and functions of clothing among female shoppers Marika Tiggemann *, Catherine Lacey School of Psychology, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history: Received 13 February 2009 Received in revised form 3 July 2009 Accepted 3 July 2009
The present study aimed to investigate the link between clothing and body experience in women of different ages. Participants were 162 female clothes shoppers between the ages of 18 and 55 who completed questionnaire measures of body image, functions of clothing, self-esteem, and enjoyment of clothes shopping. It was found that clothing was worn primarily for assurance and fashion by women of all ages. On the other hand, BMI and body dissatisfaction were related to the use of clothing for camouflage purposes and to a more negative clothes shopping experience. Both components of appearance investment were related to choice of clothes for fashion and assurance. However, the selfevaluative salience component was negatively related, while the motivational salience was positively related, to enjoyment of clothes shopping. It was concluded that although clothing is an underresearched aspect of body image, it represents an important part of women’s appearance management, whatever their age. ß 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Clothing functions Body image Appearance investment Shopping for clothes
Introduction Although body image is a complex and multifaceted construct encompassing many aspects of body experience (Cash & Pruzinsky, 1990), in contemporary society the major research focus has been on body shape and weight. In this, other important contributors to body experience have been relatively neglected. In particular, as pointed out by Cash (1990), few studies have addressed the role of everyday appearance-management behaviours such as hair-style or dress in women’s body image. Thus a common perception seems to be that the body image construct refers to the unclothed body as opposed to the clothed body (Rudd & Lennon, 2000). On the other hand, there is a large and complex existing literature on the role of clothes in general, in what has come to be referred to as the ‘‘clothing and textile field’’ (Beach, Kincade, & Schofield-Tomschin, 2005). This interdisciplinary field draws together research from the perspectives of philosophy, anthropology, social psychology, sociology, and cultural studies (Entwistle & Wilson, 2001). Clothes are seen as serving individual, social, and physical human needs, as well as offering cultural representations and art forms (Kaiser, 1997). Research focuses on the social meaning of clothes, which are conceptualized as actively
* Corresponding author at: School of Psychology, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia. E-mail address: Marika.Tiggemann@flinders.edu.au (M. Tiggemann). 1740-1445/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.07.002
embedded within social relations and as ‘‘the insignia by which we are read and come to read others’’ (Entwistle, 2000, p. 35). Thus the clothes we wear can be expressive of identity, telling others something about our gender, class, status, or consumer attitudes (e.g., Kaiser, Chandler, & Hammidi, 2001). Perhaps surprisingly, there is very little overlap between contemporary research in this field (clothing and textiles) and the body image field. The present study focuses on the relationship between the functions of clothing and body image in adult women. Perhaps the primary reason that the role of clothing has been relatively neglected in the body image research thus far is that clothes, and in particular fashion, are seen as ‘‘frivolous, trivial, and inconsequential’’, and hence unworthy of serious study (Frith & Gleeson, 2004). In addition, the majority of existing body image research has drawn from college samples and so is confined to a very narrow age range, for whom body shape and weight may be prepotent. It has been suggested, however, that clothing and other appearancemanagement behaviours may become increasingly salient for women as they age (Jackson & O’Neal, 1994; Tiggemann, 2004), providing a means of secondary or cognitive control of the inevitable and largely uncontrollable ageing-related changes in the body (Webster & Tiggemann, 2003). More generally, clothing is different from other aspects of body image (such as weight and shape) because it is to a large extent controllable (although limited by price and availability). The act of dressing clearly represents intentional behaviour. Indeed, women choose what to wear every single day of their lives. Nevertheless, the wearing of clothes is
286
M. Tiggemann, C. Lacey / Body Image 6 (2009) 285–291
definitionally an embodied practice, and hence body and clothing are inexorably linked. The overarching aim of the present study was to investigate aspects of body image and clothing function, as well as their link, across the young adult and middle-aged portion of the female life span (18–55 years). With respect to body image, Cash (2002) has distinguished two components: body evaluation (how satisfied or dissatisfied with the body one is), and body investment (the cognitive, behavioural and emotional importance of the body for self-evaluation). A number of commentators (e.g., Grogan, 2008; Tiggemann, 2004) have concluded that the former component, body dissatisfaction, remains remarkably stable across the entire female life span. As yet there is little direct evidence on the investment component, but some findings that variables like importance of appearance (Pliner, Chaiken, & Flett, 1990), appearance orientation (Cash, Winstead, & Janda, 1986), and self-objectification (McKinley, 1999; Tiggemann & Lynch, 2001) decrease with increasing age. In support, the relationship between body dissatisfaction and self-esteem is much weaker in older than young adult women (Webster & Tiggemann, 2003). More recently, Cash, Melnyk, and Hrabosky (2004) have differentiated two forms of appearance investment: self-evaluative salience which reflects the extent to which one’s appearance is integral to self-worth, and motivational salience which reflects the effort invested in maintaining or improving one’s appearance. The former (self-evaluative salience) has been found to be a more dysfunctional form of investment, correlated with lower selfesteem (Cash, Melnyk, et al., 2004), poorer body image quality of life (Cash, Jakatdar, & Williams, 2004), and the use of avoidant body image coping strategies (Cash, Santos, & Williams, 2005). In contrast, motivational salience is not correlated with these negative outcomes. Thus it seems that the motivation to attend to one’s appearance and to engage in appearance-enhancing behaviours is relatively benign. Together, the above findings lead to the prediction that particularly the self-evaluative salience aspect of appearance investment will decrease with age. Given both the physical differences and likely differences in approach to their body, younger and older women may also differ in their approach to clothing. In particular, they may select clothing for different purposes. Any casual scan of women walking down the street or perusal through any fashion magazine reveals that clothing may fulfil motivations beyond warmth and simple coverage of the body in public. More generally, the social psychology of clothing indicates that clothes serve multiple functions for individuals, including fashion, presentation of a particular image, and self-enhancement, functions which are likely to vary in importance according to the social context (Kaiser, 1997). For example, there is a general stereotype that fashion is defined and led by the young, and that middle-aged individuals are not interested in fashion (Damhorst, 1999). As a result, current trends and styles of fashion are most often promoted by young models and celebrities whom young women then seek to emulate (Shorter, Brown, Quinton, & Hinton, 2008), and thus older women may be less likely to choose clothes on the basis of fashion. Instead, to the extent that clothing is used as an appearance-management technique to ameliorate the impact of a visibly ageing body, older women might be expected to use clothing more for both concealment and self-enhancement purposes. Qualitative accounts (e.g., Damhorst, 1999) document the complex relationship that older women have with their clothes (e.g., the worry of being seen as ‘‘mutton dressed as lamb’’). As yet, there has been little systematic examination of how women’s clothing choices differ across age. Likewise, the potential link between body image and clothing preferences has been little addressed in adult women. Indeed, only a handful of studies have investigated this link in college samples
(Frith & Gleeson, 2004). Earlier studies focused on clothing interest, that is, general enjoyment of, and interest and investment in, clothes (Kaiser, 1997). Clothing interest was found to be inversely correlated with public self-consciousness (Kwon, 1992; Miller, Davis, & Rowold, 1982; Solomon & Schopler, 1982), but not perceived body build (Davis, 1985) or body consciousness (Kwon, 1992). The latter author concluded that all women are likely to be socialized to place emphasis on clothes and fashion on an everyday basis, which makes it difficult to distinguish between them on the basis of interest in clothing. In a later study, however, Harden, Butler, and Scheetz (1998) showed that women with higher satisfaction with body image chose clothing that accentuated the body and those with lower satisfaction selected concealing clothing. Consistent with this finding, Kwon and Parham (1994) have shown that in a ‘‘fat’’ state, clothes are selected more for camouflage, and less for individuality, than in a ‘‘more slender’’ state. Finally, Rudd and Lennon’s (2000) qualitative study of body image indicated that clothing was spontaneously mentioned as a strategy to camouflage some aspect of the body, or as a means of self-expression, by around 30% of their sample of college women. Other accounts by ‘‘fat’’ women document the difficulties they have in finding appropriate clothes (Miller, 1980). These results lead to the prediction that body image will be related to the use of clothing for different functions. In particular, it is predicted that high BMI and body dissatisfaction will be related to using clothes to conceal or camouflage unacceptable parts of the body. In contrast, women who are satisfied with their bodies are likely to use clothes for enhancement of the body and self. A secondary aim of the study was to assess the contribution of age and body image to the quality of the clothes shopping experience in general. Some authors have argued that fashion and shopping have become a lifestyle for women in affluent Western societies (Banim, Green, & Guy, 2001). Certainly anecdotal evidence suggests that shopping is used by many women as a way to improve mood and for enjoyment, a result captured in the term ‘‘retail therapy’’. However, anecdotal evidence also suggests that shopping for and trying on bathers (swimsuits) results in an almost universally distressing experience for women. In fact, there are many aspects of shopping for clothes that may detract from the enjoyment of the activity, especially for women who are heavier and who have negative feelings about themselves or their body. First, the experience essentially revolves around what size a person is, whether or not the clothes fit, and whether or not the clothes look good. Thus shopping will inevitably prove a disappointing experience for women who cannot find a garment that fits or suits them. Second, the very process of trying on clothing involves closer than normal scrutiny of both their near-naked and clothed body in a dressing room equipped with a full length mirror and bright lighting. Experimental research has indicated that these conditions can lead to a state of self-objectification and feelings of body shame and anxiety (e.g., Fredrickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, & Twenge, 1998). Third, most likely there will be posters of models wearing the latest arrival stock displayed around the store, and certainly mannequins modelling the fashions in very small sizes. Metaanalyses (Grabe, Ward, & Hyde, 2008; Groesz, Levine, & Murnen, 2002) have demonstrated that exposure to such thin idealized images leads to lower mood and body satisfaction. Hence, for many women, shopping for and trying on clothes may simply serve as a potent reminder that their body is not ‘‘right’’. In particular, it is predicted that women with high BMI or body dissatisfaction will not find shopping for clothes enjoyable. In sum, the present study aimed to investigate aspects of body image (both evaluation and investment), clothing functions, selfesteem, and enjoyment of clothes shopping across a reasonable portion of the female adult life span. The particular focus was on the inter-relationships between body image and clothing functions.
M. Tiggemann, C. Lacey / Body Image 6 (2009) 285–291
Method Participants Participants were a convenience sample of 162 female shoppers between the ages of 18 and 55 years (M = 30.41, SD = 11.45) recruited from a clothing store in a middle to high class area of metropolitan Adelaide, South Australia. The store carries casual, business and formal wear, but not bathing suits or underwear. Mean Body Mass Index (BMI) was 23.1 (SD = 4.0). According to standard cut-offs (Garrow & Webster, 1985), 20.9% of the participants could be categorized as underweight (BMI < 20), 57.5% as normal weight (20 < BMI < 25), and 21.6% as overweight (BMI > 25). This last category included 6.1% who were obese (BMI > 30). Measures The questionnaire (entitled ‘Your clothing and you!’) included background questions about participants’ age, height, weight, clothing size, and frequency of shopping. The questionnaire also contained the following measures (in order): functions of clothing, appearance investment, self-esteem, body satisfaction, clothing satisfaction, and enjoyment of clothes shopping. Functions of clothing Functions of clothing were assessed by a selection of items from those used by Kwon and Parham (1994) to compare ‘‘slender’’ and ‘‘fat’’ states (those items that loaded on their factors in both ‘states’). Participants were asked to rate 15 potential functions of clothing on 5-point Likert scales (from 1 = ‘strongly disagree’, to 5 = ‘strongly agree’) in response to the stem ‘‘I tend to select. . .’’ Items ranged across five categories: fashion (e.g., ‘‘clothes that are fashionable’’), comfort (e.g., ‘‘clothes that are comfortable’’), camouflage (e.g., ‘‘clothes that camouflage my figure problems’’), assurance (e.g., ‘‘clothes which boost my morale’’), and individuality (e.g., ‘‘clothes that make me distinctive’’). Body satisfaction Body satisfaction was assessed by the widely used Body Areas Satisfaction Scale, a subscale of the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire (Cash, 2000). Participants rate their level of satisfaction with nine aspects of their bodies (e.g., ‘‘face’’, ‘‘midtorso (waist, stomach)’’) on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = ‘very dissatisfied’, 5 = ‘very satisfied’). Ratings are summed and averaged to produce an overall level of body satisfaction. Resulting scores range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. Cash (2000) reported adequate internal reliability for the scale for women (a = .73). More recently, Giovannelli, Cash, Henson, and Engle (2008) have reported higher reliability (a = .83). In the present sample, reliability was similar (a = .80). Clothing satisfaction Two items (‘‘clothing’’ and ‘‘appearance in clothing’’) were appended to the Body Areas Satisfaction Scale to directly ask participants their usual level of satisfaction with their clothes (using the same format). Thus resulting scores again ranged between 1 and 5. Internal reliability was again good (a = .80). Appearance investment Investment in appearance was assessed by the Appearance Schemas Inventory-Revised (ASI-R) developed by Cash, Melnyk, et al. (2004). This 20-item scale assesses beliefs or assumptions about the importance, meaning, and influence of appearance in one’s life, and consists of two subscales. Self-Evaluative Salience (12 items) refers to the extent to which one’s appearance is
287
important to self-worth. Motivational Salience (8 items) refers to the motivation invested in maintaining or improving one’s appearance. Participants rate their agreement with a series of statements about appearance (e.g., ‘‘What I look like is an important part of who I am’’, ‘‘I try to be as physically attractive as I can be’’) on 5-point Likert scales (1 = ‘strongly disagree’, 5 = ‘strongly agree’). Items are scored in the direction of high appearance investment, and then summed and averaged, so that resulting scores range between 1 and 5. Cash, Melnyk, et al. (2004) reported good internal reliability for women for both subscales (as = .82, .90). Cash and Grasso (2005) reported 2-week test–retest reliability coefficients of .88 and .78, respectively. In the present sample, reliability was clearly acceptable (Self-Evaluative Salience a = .87; Motivational Salience a = .79). Self-esteem Self-esteem was measured by the Bachman and O’Malley (1977) adaptation of the Rosenberg (1965) Self-Esteem Scale. Participants rate the accuracy of 10 statements concerning their beliefs about themselves (e.g., ‘‘I am a useful person to have around’’) on 5-point Likert scales (1 = ‘never’ to 5 = ‘always’). Responses on individual items were summed to indicate each participant’s overall level of self-esteem, with scores ranging between 10 and 50 and higher scores indicating higher selfesteem. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale has high internal consistency of .88 (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991). A similarly high reliability was found in the present sample (a = .89). Enjoyment of clothes shopping A measure of the positiveness of the general experience of shopping for clothes was developed for the current study. Participants were asked to rate their agreement with five statements (e.g., ‘‘I often find clothes shopping a negative experience (R)’’, using a Likert scale (1 = ‘strongly disagree’, 5 = ‘strongly agree’). The complete list of items is provided in Appendix A. Items were scored in the positive direction and summed and averaged to produce a score ranging between 1 and 5. This scale was found to have high internal reliability (a = .85). Procedure Women shoppers were invited to participate in the study via a poster and an information letter on the store counter, situated in the middle of the store. Interested participants were given a questionnaire which they completed either in the store or at home in their own time, and then returned by post in a sealed reply-paid envelope. Participants who wished were entered into a raffle for a clothing store voucher. Of 280 questionnaires distributed, 162 were returned, representing a response rate of 58%. Results Characteristics of the sample On average, women in the sample reported shopping for clothing around once a fortnight (M = 3.2, SD = 1.4). Their clothes size ranged from 7 to 18 (Australian sizing) with a mean size of 10.8 (SD = 2.4). Participants’ mean body satisfaction score of 3.29 (SD = 0.62) was almost identical to that of the normative score of several combined samples of United States women (M = 3.23, SD = 0.74; Cash, 2000). Similarly, their overall mean appearance investment score (M = 3.49, SD = 0.59) closely resembled that of a college sample of white American women (M = 3.53, SD = 0.62; Cash, Melnyk, et al., 2004). For the specific subscales, mean selfevaluative salience here (M = 3.24, SD = 0.71) was very similar to
M. Tiggemann, C. Lacey / Body Image 6 (2009) 285–291
288
Table 1 Factor loadings and mean ratings of functions of clothing.
Table 2 Correlations between age and BMI with body image and clothing variables.
Component 1 Boost morale Feel better Sure of self Self-confidence Flattering Fashionable Stylish Impress people Camouflage Loose No attention Exciting Distinctive Unusual Comfortable
Mean rating 2
.77 .86 .83 .80 .60 .04 .23 .09 .37 .05 .05 .07 .29 .03 .07
3 .02 .08 .00 .13 .24 .77 .72 .71 .10 .09 .12 .39 .14 .06 .37
4 .03 .05 .08 .08 .11 .10 .15 .06 .68 .82 .74 .19 .16 .13 .37
.10 .01 .08 .01 .10 .12 .16 .02 .18 .05 .09 .60 .79 .87 .34
3.5 3.7 3.7 4.1 4.5 3.6 4.0 3.3 3.2 2.4 2.9 3.1 3.1 2.6 3.9
Note: Factor loadings >.5 are in bold.
that of several combined samples of American female college students (M = 3.29, SD = 0.72; Cash & Grasso, 2005). On the other hand, motivational salience (M = 3.85, SD = 0.63) was a little higher than the normative sample (M = 3.66, SD = 0.67). Functions of clothing As can be seen in Table 1 which displays the means for each of the reasons for selecting clothes, most reasons were moderately rated (above mid-point of 3), indicating that clothing can serve a variety of functions. The most highly rated item was choosing clothes that are flattering to the figure, followed by clothes that give self-confidence and are stylish and comfortable. A principal components analysis (followed by varimax rotation) was conducted. The scree plot and eigenvalues (>1) indicated four clear factors. The resulting factor loadings are presented in Table 1. The first factor (eigenvalue = 3.68) accounted for 24.5% of the variance and contained five items clearly tapping the assurance function of clothes (e.g., ‘‘clothes that give me self-confidence’’). The second factor (eigenvalue = 2.52, 16.8% of variance) contained three items related to fashion (e.g., ‘‘clothes that are stylish’’). The third factor (eigenvalue = 1.67, 11.1% of variance) contained three items related to the hiding or camouflage function of clothing (e.g., ‘‘loosely-fitting clothes’’), while the fourth factor (eigenvalue = 1.40, 9.4% of variance) contained three items related to individuality (e.g., ‘‘clothes that are unusual’’). The single item not to load on exactly one factor was ‘‘Clothes that are comfortable’’. To reduce the data for subsequent analyses, four corresponding scale scores were calculated by summing and averaging items that loaded on each factor, and the Comfort item was retained as a single-item scale. Internal reliabilities (a) were acceptable for scales with few items (Assurance: .84, Fashion: .66, Camouflage: .68, Individuality: .71). In terms of the factor scales, the Assurance (M = 3.9, SD = 0.7), Comfort (M = 3.9, SD = 0.8) and Fashion (M = 3.6, SD = 0.7) components were the most highly endorsed (Camouflage M = 2.8, SD = 0.9; Individuality M = 3.4, SD = 0.7). Overall clothing satisfaction (M = 3.72, SD = 0.71) was relatively high, and notably higher than body satisfaction (M = 3.29, SD = 0.62), t(161) = 9.28, p < .001. Effects of age and BMI on body image and clothing variables Table 2 provides the correlations between all variables with age, as well as with BMI. These two were themselves positively correlated, r = .21, p < .05, but produced a very different pattern of
Age Body image Body satisfaction Appearance investment (self-evaluative) Appearance investment (motivational) Clothing functions Fashion Assurance Camouflage Individuality Comfort Clothing satisfaction Self-esteem Clothes shopping enjoyment * **
BMI
.04 .27* .04
.47** .10 .13
.14 .13 .03 .06 .20* .13 .20* .04
.15 .06 .49** .05 .08 .33** .06 .51**
p < .05. p < .01.
results. For body image, it can be seen that age was not related to body satisfaction, but was related to the self-evaluative component of appearance investment. As women became older, their investment in appearance in terms of its importance to their self-worth decreased. In contrast, BMI was not related to either appearance investment component, but was negatively related to body satisfaction—the greater the BMI, the lower the body satisfaction. Age, but not BMI, was also related to increased self-esteem. For clothing functions, age was related to only the increased choice of clothing for comfort, while BMI was related to increased use of clothing for camouflage. BMI was also negatively related to clothing satisfaction and enjoyment of clothes shopping. One aspect of interest was whether BMI would have different effects at different ages. Consequently the interaction between age and BMI was tested for all variables by hierarchical multiple regression analyses in which age and BMI were entered on the first step (main effects), and their product entered on the second step. For no variable did the age BMI product term provide additional significant variance (all R2 change < .02, p > .10). Relationship between body image and clothing functions Table 3 provides the correlations between body image and clothing functions. As can be seen, the pattern for body satisfaction followed that of BMI (Table 2). Specifically, body satisfaction was negatively related to the use of clothing for camouflage. Appearance investment (both forms), on the other hand, was related to the use of clothing for fashion and assurance. In addition, self-evaluative salience was related to the use of clothes for camouflage, and motivational salience was negatively related to choosing clothes for comfort. Table 3 Correlations between body image, self-esteem and clothing functions. Clothing functions Fashion Body image Body satisfaction Appearance investment (self-evaluative) Appearance investment (motivational) Clothes satisfaction Self-esteem * **
p < .05. p < .001.
Assurance
Camouflage
Individuality
Comfort
.05 .33**
.10 .36**
.62** .31**
.15 .06
.00 .10
.43**
.25**
.05
.08
.17*
.19* .00
.01 .01
.52** .31**
.26** .18*
.10 .04
M. Tiggemann, C. Lacey / Body Image 6 (2009) 285–291 Table 4 Predictors of enjoyment of clothes shopping. Correlation (r)
Age BMI Body satisfaction Appearance investment (self-evaluative) Appearance investment (motivational) Self-esteem Fashion Assurance Camouflage Individuality Comfort * **
.04 .51** .61** .33** .12 .36** .25** .11 .52** .30** .02
Regression coefficient (b) .02 .22** .27** .31** .19* .00 .19** .03 .13 .21** .03
p < .05. p < .01.
Not surprisingly, clothing satisfaction was positively related to the use of clothes for fashion and individuality, and negatively to camouflage. Finally, self-esteem was negatively related to use of clothing for camouflage, and positively related to use for individuality. Prediction of enjoyment of clothes shopping experience The mean score of 3.07 (SD = 0.88) indicates that, on average, shopping for clothes was perceived as a neutral experience, although scores ranged across the full range from the minimum to the maximum. Table 4 provides the correlations between enjoyment of clothes shopping and other variables. It can be seen that a pleasurable shopping experience was associated with smaller BMI, greater body satisfaction, lower self-evaluative appearance investment, greater self-esteem, and more use of clothing for fashion and individuality, and less for camouflage. In order to see which of these variables offered unique prediction, a simultaneous multiple regression was conducted. This accounted for a significant 58.2% of the variance, R = .763, F(11, 136) = 17.20, p < .001. From the Beta coefficients in Table 4, it can be seen that low BMI, body satisfaction, low self-evaluative salience and high motivational salience appearance investment, and using clothes for fashion and individuality, were independent predictors of enjoying clothes shopping. Discussion The present study proved successful in demonstrating links between body image and clothing functions in a sample of adult women. Aspects of the ways women view their bodies do translate into how they choose to clothe themselves. The present results extend the small amount of often qualitative research conducted with college students in two ways. First, a more detailed analysis with psychometrically validated measures of body image was undertaken. Second, the sample consisted of a community sample of adult women across a reasonable portion of the female adult life span. With respect to body image, the findings show that the two components (evaluation, investment) responded differently to age, as predicted. Body dissatisfaction (the evaluation component) was not related to age, consistent with the conclusion of a number of commentators that body dissatisfaction is relatively stable across the female life span (Grogan, 2008; Tiggemann, 2004). The current finding replicates in an Australian sample the results of Cash and Henry’s (1995) national survey of over 800 American women with the same measure of body satisfaction (BASS). The self-evaluative salience component of appearance investment, on the other hand, was negatively correlated with age. That is, as women grow older,
289
their appearance becomes less closely tied to their sense of selfworth. Perhaps other aspects of their lives (e.g., occupational identity, motherhood) become more central (Tiggemann & Stevens, 1999), or alternatively, women may adopt cognitive strategies that increase their acceptance of their aging bodies (Webster & Tiggemann, 2003). This finding confirms previous conjecture (e.g., Tiggemann, 2004) with a psychometrically valid measure of appearance investment. The motivational salience component of appearance evaluation was not related to either age or BMI, indicating that adult women invest time and effort into their appearance at approximately the same level whatever their size or age. One particular way in which women invest in their appearance is through their choice of clothing. In some ways, it is surprising that clothing has not aroused more specific attention as an appearance-management behaviour in the body image literature, in that people make clothing selections every single day of their lives and the naked body is only rarely on display. In the present sample, many reasons for selecting clothing were highly endorsed, indicating that clothes do fulfil multiple social and other purposes (Kaiser, 1997). Specific functions identified by the factor analysis included assurance, fashion, camouflage, identity, and comfort, confirming the functions put forward by Kwon and Parham (1994). Of these, the most highly endorsed functions overall were for assurance, fashion and comfort. The first two clearly indicate that women do use clothing to manage and improve their appearance and their presentation, as well as to enhance their feelings about themselves. Further, there were few significant correlations between age and clothing function—the only one was that older women chose clothes more for comfort. But older women still chose clothes for assurance, fashion, and individuality to the same extent as younger women. Thus it seems that clothes are important to women whatever their age. However, the major aim of the present study was to investigate the link between body image and clothing function. In general, body image was a much stronger determinant of clothing practices than age. Specifically, it was demonstrated that, irrespective of age, greater BMI and body dissatisfaction were related to the use of clothing for camouflage purposes. This explicitly confirms the previous qualitative and less direct accounts of college students (Harden et al., 1998; Kwon & Parham, 1994; Rudd & Lennon, 2000). The result indicates that those women not satisfied with their body did feel the need to cover up what are perceived as imperfections. Investment in appearance (both components) was related to the use of clothing for assurance and fashion. Interestingly, the selfevaluative salience component, but not the motivational salience component, was also related to the use of clothing for camouflage. The fact that neither body dissatisfaction nor self-esteem was related to the use of clothing for fashion, assurance, or comfort, the three most highly endorsed functions, suggests that women of all levels of body satisfaction and self-esteem select clothing for these functions at similar levels. Self-esteem, however, was related to camouflage and individuality, whereby women with higher selfesteem were less likely to cover up their body and more likely to try and stand out. It may be that, in some ways, having a body that differs from the societally prescribed thin ideal (as is the case for most adult women’s bodies) presents women with a choice: either to camouflage and minimize that difference, or to accentuate and individualize the difference. The present data suggest that it may be self-esteem that determines and/or is the consequence of which choice is made. A secondary aim of the study was to investigate predictors of enjoyment of clothes shopping. Given that women in the present sample had high levels of clothing satisfaction and were relatively slim (the majority were of normal weight), it is perhaps surprising that their shopping for clothes experiences were not more positive.
290
M. Tiggemann, C. Lacey / Body Image 6 (2009) 285–291
Nevertheless, it was found that women who shopped for fashion and individuality enjoyed clothes shopping more. In contrast, bigger women with high body dissatisfaction or self-evaluative salience enjoyed shopping less. This is not surprising as shopping for clothes squarely focuses attention on women’s bodies in a number of potentially negative ways: from the bright lights and large mirrors in the dressing room, to the posters on the wall, to the size of the clothing on display and on the racks. The difficulty many larger women have in finding clothing that fits and looks good understandably makes shopping for clothes a negative experience. Furthermore, the present results are likely to underestimate the strength of these effects. Participants were by definition all women shoppers in a clothing store. Undoubtedly there are a large number of women who avoid going clothes shopping and only enter dress shops rarely. Thus it seems likely that the shopping experience does not in fact deliver ‘‘retail therapy’’ for many women. The final regression analysis to predict enjoyment of clothes shopping indicated that the self-evaluative and motivational salience components of appearance investment in fact operated in opposite directions. The extent to which appearance is central to self-worth (self-evaluative salience) was related to more negative experience of clothes shopping, while the extent to which women were motivated to attend to their appearance (motivational salience) was related to a more positive experience. Theoretically, this confirms in a new domain (clothes shopping) the suggestion that self-evaluative salience is the more maladaptive or dysfunctional form of appearance investment (Cash, Melnyk, et al., 2004; Cash & Grasso, 2005). Practically, the result indicates that there is no need for women to be dissuaded from their attempts to look attractive and enhance their appearance (if anything, these attempts should be encouraged), as long as their appearance does not become the basis for their judgements of self-worth. Given that the levels of enjoyment experienced during shopping for clothes were not high, one might ask the question as to why then do women go clothes shopping (as often as an average of once a fortnight in the present sample)? In some ways, this is a parallel question to that raised in the media literature: ‘If looking at images in fashion magazines makes women feel bad about themselves (as has been experimentally shown), then why do they continue to read and buy these magazines’? (Polivy & Herman, 2004; Tiggemann, 2005). In that context, the emerging answer appears to be for inspiration and fantasy (Mills, Polivy, Herman, & Tiggemann, 2002; Tiggemann, Polivy, & Hargreaves, 2009). Most likely shopping for clothes has the same allure—the ever-hope that one will find something which looks absolutely fabulous sustains the otherwise negative experience. In accord, Banim et al. (2001, p. 12) describe clothes shopping as ‘‘both a physical, bodily activity and an imaginary, unreal one.’’ The findings have a number of practical implications for shop owners and clothing designers. To provide a more positive experience for all women visiting their stores, shop owners should consider offering a wider range of clothing sizes and styles, as well as being mindful of the functions underlying women’s clothing choices. An effort could also be made to soften lighting in the dressing rooms and to display mannequins and posters of models of a variety of shapes and sizes when advertising the ‘looks’ sold in the store. Although the current study extended previous research and investigated factors involved in women’s selection of clothing and the enjoyment gained from shopping for clothes, there are a number of limitations. First, participants were recruited from one particular clothing store in a middle to high class area, and therefore cannot be held as representative of all shoppers, and certainly not of the general female population. In some ways, however, the potential restricted range on variables serves to strengthen the obtained results. Nevertheless, it is vital that future research sample women from other places such as shopping malls
to obtain more diversity in size, ethnicity, and socio-economic background. Second, the clothing and shopping choices of women older than 55 also warrant research attention. Third, the study did not take into account the specific shopping experience, e.g., whether the woman had just tried on something (successfully or unsuccessfully). Future research might usefully analyse components of the shopping experience in more detail. Finally, as a correlational study, the results demonstrate a link between body image and clothing variables, but not a casual model. While it seems more logical that body image evaluation and investment will impact on clothing practices, it is also likely that various clothing choices or shopping experiences will influence how women feel about their bodies. Only experimental or longitudinal research could come to more definitive conclusions. Despite these limitations, the present study was able to clearly demonstrate a link between body image and clothing functions in a sample of adult women. There is little doubt that the selection of clothing represents an important appearance-management behaviour for women of all ages in Western societies, one that warrants further research in the context of body image. Appendix A Items for enjoyment of clothes shopping 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
I usually find clothes shopping a positive experience Trying clothes on makes me feel good about myself I often find clothes shopping a negative experience (R) Trying on clothes makes me feel good about my body Trying on clothes makes me conscious of my weight (R)
References Bachman, J. G., & O’Malley, P. M. (1977). Self-esteem in young men: A longitudinal analysis of the impact of educational and occupational attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 365–380. Banim, M., Green, E., & Guy, A. (2001). Introduction. In A. Guy, E. Green, & M. Banim (Eds.), Through the wardrobe (pp. 1–17). Oxford, UK: Berg. Beach, J. L., Kincade, D. H., & Schofield-Tomschin, S. (2005). Human complexity: Development of a theoretical framework for the clothing and textile field. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 23, 28–44. Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. Vol. 1 (pp.115–160). New York: Academic Press Cash, T. F. (1990). The psychology of physical apearance: Aesthetics, attributes, and images. In T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body images: Development, deviance, and change (pp. 51–79). New York: Guilford press. Cash, T. F. (2000). User’s manual for the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire. Available from the author at www.body-images.com. Cash, T. F. (2002). Body image: Cognitive behavioral perspectives on body image. In T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body images: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 38–46). New York: Guilford Press. Cash, T. F., & Grasso, K. (2005). The norms and stability of new measures of the multidimensional body image construct. Body Image, 2, 199–203. Cash, T. F., & Henry, P. E. (1995). Women’s body images: The results of a national survey in the USA. Sex Roles, 33, 19–28. 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, 1, 279–287. 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. (Eds.). (1990). Body images: Development, deviance and change. New York: Guilford Press. Cash, T. F., Santos, M. T., & Williams, E. F. (2005). Coping with body-image threats and challenges: Validation of the Body Image Coping Strategies Inventory. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 58, 191–199. Cash, T. F., Winstead, B. A., & Janda, L. H. (1986). Body image survey report: The great American shape-up. Psychology Today, 19, 30–37. Damhorst, M. L. (1999). Dressing through adulthood. In M. L. Damhorst, K. A. Miller, & S. O. Michelman (Eds.), The meanings of dress (pp. 328–370). New York: Fairchild. Davis, L. L. (1985). Perceived somatotype, body-cathexis, and attitudes towards clothing among college females. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1199–1205. Entwistle, J. (2000). The fashioned body. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Entwistle, J., & Wilson, E. (Eds.). (2001). Body dressing. Oxford, UK: Berg. Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T. A., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 269–284.
.
M. Tiggemann, C. Lacey / Body Image 6 (2009) 285–291 Frith, H., & Gleeson, K. (2004). Clothing and embodiment: Men managing body image and appearance. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 5, 40–48. Garrow, J. S., & Webster, B. S. (1985). Quetelet’s Index (W/H2) as a measure of fatness. International Journal of Obesity, 9, 147–153. Giovannelli, T. S., Cash, T. F., Henson, J. M., & Engle, E. K. (2008). The measurement of body-image dissatisfaction–satisfaction: Is rating importance important? Body Image, 5, 216–223. Grabe, S., Ward, L. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2008). The role of the media in body image concerns among women: A meta-analysis of experimental and correlational studies. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 460–476. 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. Grogan, S. (2008). Body image (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Harden, A. J., Butler, S., & Scheetz, M. (1998). Body perceptions of bulimic and nonbulimic groups. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87, 108–110. Jackson, H. O., & O’Neal, G. S. (1994). Dress and appearance responses to perceptions of aging. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 12, 8–15. Kaiser, S. B. (1997). The social psychology of clothing: Symbolic appearances in context (2nd ed. rev). New York: Fairchild. Kaiser, S., Chandler, J., & Hammidi, T. (2001). Minding appearances in female academic culture. In A. Guy, E. Green, & M. Banim (Eds.), Through the wardrobe (pp. 117–136). Oxford, UK: Berg. Kwon, Y. H. (1992). Body consciousness, self-consciousness, and women’s attitudes toward clothing practices. Social Behavior and Personality, 20, 295–307. Kwon, Y. H., & Parham, E. S. (1994). Effects of state of fatness perception on weight conscious women’s clothing practices. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 12, 16–21. McKinley, N. M. (1999). Women and objectified body consciousness: Mothers’ and daughters’ body experience in cultural, developmental and familial context. Developmental Psychology, 35, 760–769. Miller, F. G., Davis, L. L., & Rowold, K. L. (1982). Public self-consciousness, social anxiety, and attitudes toward the use of clothing. Home Economics Research Journal, 10, 363–368.
291
Miller, M. (1980). Such a pretty face: Being fat in America. New York: Norton. Mills, J. S., Polivy, J., Herman, C. P., & Tiggemann, M. (2002). Effects of exposure to thin media images: Evidence of self-enhancement among restrained eaters. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1687–1699. Pliner, P., Chaiken, S., & Flett, G. L. (1990). Gender differences in concern with body weight and physical appearance over the life span. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 263–273. Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (2004). Sociocultural idealization of thin female body shapes: An introduction to the special issue on body image and eating disorders. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 1–6. Rudd, N. A., & Lennon, S. J. (2000). Body image and appearance-management behaviours in college women. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 18, 152– 162. Shorter, L., Brown, S. L., Quinton, S. J., & Hinton, L. (2008). Relationships between bodyshape discrepancies with favored celebrities and disordered eating in young women. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1364–1377. Solomon, M. R., & Schopler, J. (1982). Self-consciousness and clothing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 508–514. Tiggemann, M. (2004). Dietary restraint and self-esteem as predictors of weight gain over an 8-year time period. Eating Behaviors, 5, 251–259. Tiggemann, M. (2005). The state of body image research in clinical and social psychology. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 1202–1210. Tiggemann, M., & Lynch, J. E. (2001). Body image across the life span in adult women: The role of self-objectification. Developmental Psychology, 37, 243– 253. Tiggemann, M., Polivy, J., & Hargreaves, D. (2009). The processing of thin ideals in fashion magazines: A source of social comparison or fantasy? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28, 73–93. Tiggemann, M., & Stevens, C. (1999). Weight concern across the life-span: Relationship to self-esteem and feminist identity. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 26, 103–106. Webster, J., & Tiggemann, M. (2003). The relationship between women’s body satisfaction and self-image across the life span: The role of cognitive control. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164, 241–252.