- Email: [email protected]
The effect of thin and average-sized models on women’s appearance and functionality satisfaction: Does pose matter?
Body Image 32 (2020) 128–135
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Body Image journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bodyimage
The effect of thin and average-sized models on women’s appearance and functionality satisfaction: Does pose matter? Kate E. Mulgrew a,∗ , Kate Schulz a , Odette Norton a , Marika Tiggemann b a b
University of the Sunshine Coast School of Social Sciences, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore DC, Queensland, Australia Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 9 May 2019 Received in revised form 13 December 2019 Accepted 19 December 2019 Keywords: media Functionality Body size Body satisfaction Social comparison
a b s t r a c t Idealised imagery depicting the functionality of a model’s body (e.g., in fitness contexts) can trigger negative effects in viewers similar to, or worse than, traditionally posed images of models. Thus far, most of this research has been conducted on images of thin models. Building upon previous research, we examined the effect of pose (active versus posed) and body size (thin versus average-sized) on women’s body satisfaction. In an online study, 379 women aged 17–30 years completed pre-test measures of appearance and functionality satisfaction before viewing models across one of five conditions: Thin Posed, Thin Active, Average Posed, Average Active, or Scenery images. Post-test measures were taken of body satisfaction and social comparison across appearance and functionality domains. Planned contrasts showed that exposure to thin models produced poorer appearance and functionality satisfaction and more upward comparison than exposure to average-sized models or scenery. Model pose was important only when the model had an average body size. Images of active average-sized models produced poorer appearance satisfaction and triggered more upward functionality-based comparison than when the average-sized models were posed. These findings suggest that although the thinness of the model is influential, how the body is presented can also affect satisfaction and comparison. Crown Copyright © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Sociocultural theory identifies mass media as a key trigger for body image problems in young women (Tiggemann, 2011). Across different media types, models and celebrities are frequently presented in idealised formats with a focus on appearance (Levine & Murnen, 2009). Further, appearance is often conflated with selfworth and women are presented as objects to be viewed for the gratification of others potentially resulting in feelings of objectification (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Young women are frequently exposed to these idealised and unrealistic images in mass media. In Australia, individuals under 35 years report the highest amount of Internet usage, with social networking and entertainment being the most popular forms of online activity (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016). Research suggests that both traditional and social media exposure are linked with negative mental health outcomes, such as disordered eating behaviours, excessive exercise, and body
∗ Corresponding author at: School of Social Sciences, University of the Sunshine Coast, Locked Bag 4, Maroochydore DC, Queensland, 4558, Australia. E-mail address: [email protected] (K.E. Mulgrew). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.12.004 1740-1445/Crown Copyright © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
dissatisfaction, in women (Grabe, Ward, & Hyde, 2008; Holland & Tiggemann, 2016). Extending upon the existing evidence base for thin-ideal media in particular to trigger negative outcomes in viewers (Grabe et al., 2008), researchers have begun to investigate other forms of idealised imagery, such as functional imagery. These images display women in action with a focus on the physical capabilities of their body. Like the traditional posed thin-ideal imagery, functionalbased images still depict primarily thin and attractive young women, often presented in objectified ways. On the one hand, imagery of fit and active women may help to diversify media content and encourage women to engage in physical activity. On the other hand, some research has suggested that these depictions have produced yet another difficult standard for women to achieve (Bozsik, Whisenhunt, Hudson, Bennett, & Lundgren, 2018; Mask, Blanchard, & Baker, 2014) with some researchers labeling it as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” (Uhlmann, Donovan, Zimmer-Gembeck, Bell, & Ramme, 2018). One example is ‘fitspiration’ imagery; a common trend across social media which contains a mixture of functional and non-functional imagery alongside “inspirational” messages to promote exercise and healthy living. In reality, fitspiration glorifies an idealised and sexualised appearance, with some anti-fat content similar to pro-anorexia sites, such as messages with
K.E. Mulgrew et al. / Body Image 32 (2020) 128–135
weight stigmatising and food guilt themes (Boepple, Ata, Rum, & Thompson, 2016; Tiggemann & Zaccardo, 2018). Despite its positive aim, exposure to fitspiration has been shown to negatively affect body satisfaction, mood, and appearance-based self-esteem in young adult women (Griffiths & Stefanovski, 2019; Tiggemann & Zaccardo, 2015). Functional imagery is also common outside of the fitspiration trend and coincides with a rise in preference for an athletic body shape (e.g., Lenart, Goldberg, Bailey, Dallal, & Koff, 1995; Thompson, van den Berg, Roehrig, Guarda, & Heinberg, 2004). Functional imagery typically shows women engaged in physical activity but without the ‘inspirational’ quotes found on Instagram. Increased research on functional imagery has shown that, like the traditional posed thin-ideal, these images too can trigger negative outcomes in viewers. There are two important components to consider when examining the impact of functional images. First, research has shown that type of pose is important. According to Franzoi (1995), the body can be viewed and presented in one of two ways: either as an object to be viewed (Body-As-Object) or as a functional entity (BodyAs-Process). Models in thin-ideal imagery are often highly posed while models in fitness-based imagery are often shown engaged in activity. This difference may affect viewer perception. For example, research has found that images of women when walking were rated as more attractive, beautiful, and likeable compared to the same women shown standing still (Cazzato, Siega, & Urgesi, 2012). In addition, several studies have found that exposure to active thin imagery (i.e., depicting Body-As-Process) can result in negative outcomes. Compared to a neutral condition, both Body-As-Object and Body-As-Process content has been shown to negatively affect state body satisfaction (Mask et al., 2014; Mulgrew & Hennes, 2015; Prichard, McLachlan, Lavis, & Tiggemann, 2018) and fitness satisfaction (Mulgrew & Hennes, 2015). In fact, some research has found that viewing functional images can trigger worse outcomes than viewing posed models. For example, satisfaction with body competence was lower after viewing process-oriented commercials than appearance-focused commercials (Mask et al., 2014). Mulgrew and Tiggemann (2018) found that negative body image outcomes were most pronounced when women were exposed to Body-As-Process imagery, were asked to attend to the functional components of the model’s body, and engaged in greater levels of functionalitybased social comparison. Together, these findings suggest that thin functional-style imagery can trigger similar or worse outcomes compared to traditionally posed imagery of models. The second factor to consider when examining the impact of functional images is the body size of the models. Research suggests that it is the thinness of the model that is critical, as exposure to models who are less thin or fuller-figured tend not to trigger body dissatisfaction in viewers. For example, research has shown that exposure to imagery of average-sized models resulted in greater state body satisfaction (Diedrichs & Lee, 2011) and less body-related anxiety (Dittmar & Howard, 2004; Halliwell & Dittmar, 2004) than exposure to imagery of thin women, particularly for participants with higher levels of internalization or for women working in appearance-focused professions. Most recently, Moreno-Domínguez, Servián-Franco, del Paso, and Cepeda-Benito (2019) found that exposure to images of overweight models reduced state body dissatisfaction while exposure to thin models increased body dissatisfaction and anxiety. Within the social media context, Tiggemann, Hayden, Brown, and Veldhuis (2018) found that exposure to thin Instagram models led to greater body dissatisfaction and facial dissatisfaction than exposure to averagesized Instagram models. However, some research has found that exposure to “average sized or slightly oversized” models in television commercials resulted in greater sadness and food intake compared to thin models (Anschutz, Engels, Becker, & Van Strien, 2009). It seems likely that the thinness of the model will remain an
129
important consideration in the context of functional imagery. For example, one paper found that post-exposure state body dissatisfaction was higher for women who viewed the thin athletic models compared to neutral images, but there were no differences for women who viewed the average weight athletic images (Homan, McHugh, Wells, Watson, & King, 2012). Collectively, it appears that the thinness of the model is an important trigger of body dissatisfaction in women. To date, there has been very little research bringing together the components of pose and body size. In the only known study (published during our data collection), Williamson and Karazsia (2018) tested the impact of body size and body pose on body appreciation. As a measure of positive body image, body appreciation refers to the amount of love, respect, and value that is placed on various elements of the body and is seen as something more than the mere absence of negative body image or body dissatisfaction (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015). It can be conceptualised as both a trait (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015) and a state construct (Homan, 2016). Williamson and Karazsia exposed young adult women to images of posed or active models who were either thin or fuller-figured. They found that women exposed to the thin models showed no change in state body appreciation while women who viewed images of nature scenery or the fuller-figured models showed an increase in body appreciation. There was no effect of pose. Thus, only body size of the model affected viewers’ body appreciation. As yet, these effects have not been tested on any index of negative body image. A key process through which media exposure can influence body satisfaction is via social comparison (López-Guimerà, Levine, Sánchez-carracedo, & Fauquet, 2010; Myers & Crowther, 2009; Tiggemann & Polivy, 2010). There is some evidence that comparisons with relevant others are automatic (Chatard, Bocage´ & Guimond, 2017) and help us to gather Barthélémy, Selimbegovic, information about our relative standing on important domains (Festinger, 1954). Social comparison can occur in two directions with different consequences. Upward social comparison occurs when a viewer compares themself to someone whom they consider superior on an important domain. Exposure to idealised media often triggers upward social comparison (Myers & Crowther, 2009), which can result in body dissatisfaction and compensatory behaviours such as excessive exercise and disordered eating (Bessenoff, 2006; Tiggemann & Polivy, 2010). On the other hand, downward social comparison occurs when a viewer compares themselves to someone whom they consider inferior on an important domain. For example, Tiggemann and Polivy (2010) found that comparisons to models based on intelligence were negatively associated with body dissatisfaction. Although most research has focused on appearance-based social comparison, there is evidence that comparison with idealised models along functionality domains also results in dissatisfaction with one’s own appearance and functionality. For example, Mulgrew and Tiggemann (2018) found that amount of functionality-based comparison did not moderate responses to posed images but did so for active images. Specifically, greater functionality-based comparisons were associated with poorer functionality satisfaction after viewing active images. Further, greater appearance-based comparisons were associated with poorer appearance and functionality satisfaction, regardless of image style. Thus, it appears that both the processes of appearance and functionality comparison are important and hence were measured within our study. Finally, there has been consistent discussion within the body image literature of the need for greater representation of different body sizes, shapes, and abilities in media and advertising (e.g., Diedrichs, Lee, & Kelly, 2011). Within an advertising context, images of women with larger bodies are often well-received (Beale, Malson, & Tischner, 2016), rated as equally effective as thin images
130
K.E. Mulgrew et al. / Body Image 32 (2020) 128–135
(Diedrichs & Lee, 2011) and are perceived to have benefits to viewers’ body image (Diedrichs et al., 2011). To assist with our cover story, we therefore asked participants about the overall appeal and advertising effectiveness of our images. The aim of the current study was to examine the combined effects of model body size (thin versus average-weight models, henceforth referred to as Thin and Average) and model pose (referred to as Posed versus Active) on women’s appearance satisfaction and functionality satisfaction. These were compared to a Scenery control condition. We also examined the impact on the potential mechanisms of amount and direction of comparison on the basis of appearance and functionality. Finally, we tested the overall appeal and perceived effectiveness within the advertising. In line with previous research examining body size of the model, we hypothesised that women exposed to the thin models would have poorer post-exposure appearance satisfaction, functionality satisfaction, and greater comparison compared to those exposed to the average models (and Scenery). Although there is some inconsistency in past research regarding the effects of model pose, research has generally found that models in posed and active stances produce similarly poor outcomes in viewers, with a small number of studies finding active thin images to be particularly problematic. Therefore, we tentatively predicted a greater difference in outcomes between the active and posed conditions when images are thin than when images are average-sized. Finally, in line with previous research, we expected that the average-sized models would be rated equally as appealing and effective as the thin models. 2. Method 2.1. Participants The final sample consisted of 379 women aged 17–30 years (M = 21.03, SD = 3.50 years) recruited from the university and general community. The average body mass index was 24.40 (SD = 5.92), with 10 % being low weight (i.e., “underweight”), 56.5 % medium weight (i.e., “normal” weight), 17.5 % high weight (i.e., “overweight”), and 16 % very high weight (i.e., “obese”). Most women (70 %) were Australian citizens or residents, most identified as Caucasian (87 %), and most (67 %) were currently attending university. 2.2. Materials 2.2.1. Experimental images Five sets of images were used: Thin Posed models, Average Posed models, Thin Active models, Average Active models, and Scenery. Participants only viewed one image set. Each set contained eight images of Caucasian models followed by two questions. Participants were encouraged to consider each image for about 30 s before answering appeal and effectiveness questions. The Thin Active and Posed images were taken from Mulgrew and Tiggemann (2018). This set of images had previously been carefully selected and matched on thinness and attractiveness. All images showed at least 80 % of the model’s body, were front- or side-facing, the model appeared to be a young adult, was wearing swimwear or activewear, and was considered attractive. The difference between active and posed images was guided by Body Conceptualisation theory and Farquhar and Wasylkiw’s (2007) guidelines of “level of activity” and “level of pose.” Active images depicted the body in action. Conversely, the body in posed images was stylised with a focus on the appearance of the model. The average-sized images were newly sourced by the research team. They were chosen to have more visible body weight and represent Australian size 12-14. Eighteen women aged 17–35 years
(M = 24.61, SD = 4.62 years) rated the body size (“How thin or slender is this model?”) of a preliminary set of average-sized images on a 1 (not at all) – 10 (very) rating scale. From these, we retained the average-sized images that could be matched to the existing thin images. We ensured that both the thin and average sets of images wore similar styles of revealing activewear and swimwear and that the amount of visible body was similar. For example, models in both sets wore clothing such as two-piece bikinis with visible arms, legs, midriff, and chest. The two newly developed sets of Average Posed (M = 5.52, SD = 0.55) and Average Active (M = 5.91, SD = 1.35) images were rated as significantly less thin than the Thin Posed (M = 8.52, SD = 1.04), t(14) = -7.08, p < .001, and Thin Active images (M = 7.75, SD = 0.92), t(14) = -3.16, p < .01, respectively, from Mulgrew and Tiggemann (2018). As intended, there were no differences on thinness between the Thin Posed (M = 8.52, SD = 1.05) and Thin Active images (M = 7.75, SD = 0.92), t(14) = 1.56, p = .14, or between the Average Posed (M = 5.27, SD = 0.55) and Average Active images (M = 5.91, SD = 1.35), t(14) = -0.73, p = .47. All images were sourced from websites across the Internet, including health and fitness sites, fashion sites, magazines, and blogs. Information was not provided on whether these images had been altered in any way (e.g., filters or Photoshop). The photos were of a professional standard but the models were not famous. Models in the Active conditions were wearing revealing sportswear (e.g., crop top and leggings) while models in the Posed conditions were wearing revealing swimwear (e.g., bikini). Models in the active images were engaged in a range of physical activities (e.g., lifting weights, yoga). The scenery images contained images of landscapes with no people, sourced via a google search for “natural landscapes.” Scenery images were chosen to provide a visually appealing image that was unrelated to appearance.
2.2.2. Image appeal and effectiveness After each image, participants were asked to rate the overall appeal (“Overall, this image is appealing”) of the image followed by the perceived effectiveness of the image in advertising campaigns. Participants received one of two versions of this effectiveness question dependent upon whether they viewed images with models (“This image would be effective in advertising lifestyle products in fitness or fashion magazines”) or scenery (“This image would be effective in advertising holiday deals in a range of lifestyle magazines”). Responses were made on a 1–10 Likert scale where higher scores indicated appeal or effectiveness. These ratings also ensured attention to and engagement with the images.
2.2.3. State appearance and functionality satisfaction Visual analogue scales (VAS; Heinberg & Thompson, 1995) were used to measure satisfaction with appearance and functionality. Participants were asked how satisfied they were “right now” with dimensions of their appearance (four items: satisfaction with their body fat, weight and shape, overall appearance, and body tone) and dimensions of functionality (four items: satisfaction with health and fitness, everything their body can do, physical capabilities, how their body can move). An additional four items about current mood served as distractors. Participants indicated their responses by moving a slider between the end-points of “not at all” to “very much.” Responses were scored from 0 to 100 with higher scores indicating greater level of the construct. Participants could not see these scores to help prevent recall of previous responses across the multiple administrations. These brief measures are commonly used to measure response to media with strong test-retest reliability (Birkeland et al., 2005). In our sample, internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was high for the appearance satisfaction items (␣ = .93) and for the functionality satisfaction items (␣ = .91).
K.E. Mulgrew et al. / Body Image 32 (2020) 128–135
2.2.4. Social comparison Amount of comparison to imagery was assessed using items from Tiggemann and McGill (2004) and Mulgrew and Tiggemann (2018). Participants were asked how much they thought about and compared their appearance (six items) and functionality (six items) to the models previously viewed. Specifically, three items asked about how much they thought about their appearance (one item each relating to appearance, body fat and weight, and body shape) while three items asked about their comparison to the models along those appearance dimensions. An example item is: “How much did you think about your appearance while viewing the models?”. The same format was repeated with the functionality dimensions, so that three items asked about how much they thought about the functionality of their body (one item each relating to fitness, physical strength, what your body can do/ how your body can move) and three items asked about their comparison to the models on these dimensions. An example item is: “How much did you compare your physical strength while viewing the images of the models?” Responses were made using a VAS anchored with not at all (0) to very much (5). Items were averaged to create a total score for appearance comparison and a total score for functionality comparison. High internal reliability was found for both appearance comparison (␣ = .97) and functionality comparison (␣ = .94). The direction of appearance and functionality comparison was measured via two items (Galioto & Crowther, 2013; Mulgrew, Stalley, & Tiggemann, 2017). Participants were asked whether they believed that their appearance (Item 1) and their health, fitness and strength (Item 2) was much worse (0) or much better (10) than the women in the viewed images on a 10-point Likert scale. Thus, lower scores (< 5) indicate upward social comparison and higher scores (> 5) indicate downward social comparison. 2.2.5. Attention check and manipulation awareness Participants were asked to remember a number that was placed towards the end of the image set. All participants answered this question correctly. Participants were asked to describe the purpose of the study upon completion of the survey. No responses were consistent with the study aims. 2.2.6. Demographic information Participants reported on age, height, weight, and whether they were currently attending university. 2.3. Procedure Ethics approval was granted by University of the Sunshine Coast. Women aged 17–30 years were invited to complete an online study examining responses to images commonly used in fitness and fashion magazines. Recruitment sources included social media, flyers, and teaching sites. Upon entering the survey, participants completed demographic questions and the pre-test VAS. Participants were then randomly allocated to one of five conditions by the SurveyMonkey program. Within each condition, participants viewed the allocated set of images and the engagement questions. Participants then completed the attention check question, the post-test VAS, and the appearance and functionality comparison questions. The manipulation awareness question was then presented before a debriefing statement with links to support services if needed. In total, the study took about 15 min. 3. Results
131
were non-viable (e.g., male, made more than one attempt, older than 31 years; n = 66). Other missing or incomplete data were minimal and therefore these participants were retained. An a priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) which showed that a minimum of 302 participants were needed to detect a medium effect size in the context of 5 groups with 3 covariates with power of 0.95. Our final sample size of 379 met this criterion. Effect sizes (f ) were also calculated via G*Power and can be interpreted as small (0.10), medium (0.25), or large (0.40). Data were reasonably normally distributed with no outliers and no breaches of assumptions. Further, there were no significant initial differences between the five conditions on age, BMI, or any pre-test VAS (all ps > .05), suggesting that random allocation to condition was successful. Table 1 shows the intercorrelations between the pre- and post-test VAS measures, age, and BMI. 3.2. Main analyses Analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were conducted with image type as the independent variable, post-test appearance or functionality satisfaction as the dependent variable, and respective pre-test satisfaction scores as covariates. Planned comparisons were conducted using LMATRIX. The first comparison tested all conditions against Scenery (-1, -1, -1, -1, +4). The second comparison tested the difference between thin versus average images (+1, +1, -1, -1, 0). The third and fourth comparisons examined the effect of pose within each body size: Thin Active versus Thin Posed (+1, -1, 0, 0, 0) and Average Active versus Average Posed (0, 0, -1, +1, 0). This analysis was also repeated, with the covariate removed, with the dependent variables of appearance and functionality comparison, direction of appearance and functionality comparison, image appeal, and image effectiveness. Means are shown in Table 2. 3.2.1. Appearance satisfaction The first comparison showed a significant difference between the Scenery and combined conditions containing models, F(1, 337) = 4.39, p = .03, f = 0.11, with the Scenery condition producing greater appearance satisfaction. The thin versus average comparison was statistically significant, F(1, 337) = 25.98, p < .01, f = 0.27. As can be seen in Table 2, appearance satisfaction was lower after viewing the thin models compared to the average-sized models. The third comparison showed that there was no significant difference between Thin Active and Thin Posed, F(1, 337) = 0.20, p = .65, f = 0.03. However, the effect of pose was seen within the average conditions, with the fourth comparison showing that appearance satisfaction was higher after viewing Average Posed compared to Average Active images, F(1, 337) = 4.02, p = .04, f = 0.11. 3.2.2. Functionality satisfaction There was no significant difference between the Scenery and model conditions, F(1, 341) = 0.82, p = .36, f = 0.04. The second comparison of thin versus average was statistically significant, F(1, 341) = 10.72, p = .001, f = 0.17. Table 2 shows that viewing the thin images resulted in lower functionality satisfaction than viewing the average-sized images. The next comparison, which looked at the effect of pose within the thin conditions, showed there to be no significant difference between the Thin Posed and Thin Active models, F(1, 341) = 1.60, p = .20, f = 0.07. There was also no effect of pose within the average-sized images, with no significant difference between Average Active and Average Posed, F(1, 341) = 1.95, p = .16, f = 0.07.
3.1. Statistical considerations Participants were removed if they exited the survey prior to the baseline VAS (n = 30), did not complete the post-test VAS (n = 36) or
3.2.3. Amount of appearance comparison All three comparisons were nonsignificant. There was no difference in the amount of appearance comparison between the thin
132
K.E. Mulgrew et al. / Body Image 32 (2020) 128–135
Table 1 Intercorrelations Between Pre- and Post-Test State Appearance and Functionality Satisfaction, Age, and BMI.
1. Age 2. BMI 3. Pre App. Satisfaction 4. Post App. Satisfaction 5. Pre Funct. Satisfaction 6. Post Funct. Satisfaction 7. Amount App. Comparison 8. Amount Funct. Comparison 9. Direction App. Comparison 10. Direction Funct. Comparison
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
.18** −.05 −.05 −.006 −.007 −.06 −.06 −.13* −.07
−.45** −.43** −.30** −.30** .10 .06 −.37** −.28**
.96** .69** .73** −.41** −.24** .49** .45**
.71** .77** −.43** −.27** .55** .50**
.94** −.20** −.11* .49** .60**
−.28** −.21** .52** .61**
.66** −.29** −.20**
−.23** −.28**
.67**
Note: BMI = body mass index; App = appearance; Funct = functionality; **p < .01, *p < .05. Correlations including comparison measures do not include participants who viewed the scenery images.
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Appearance and Functionality Satisfaction, Social Comparison, and Appeal of Images Across the Five Conditions.
Appearance satisfaction Pre Post Post, CV adjusted Functionality satisfaction Pre Post Post, CV adjusted State social comparison Amount, appearance Amount, functionality Direction, appearance1 Direction, functionality1 Image ratings Appeal Effectiveness
Thin Posed n = 78 M (SD)
Thin Active n = 75 M (SD)
Average Posed n = 71 M (SD)
Average Active n = 78 M (SD)
Scenery n = 77 M (SD)
43.02 (24.58) 41.58 (26.82) 38.75 1,2 (SE = 0.78)
43.39 (26.28) 42.45 (26.08) 39.25 1,2 (SE = 0.80)
39.65 (26.40) 43.75 (27.86) 44.33 1,2,4 (SE = 0.83)
35.99 (24.06) 37.70 (26.23) 41.98 1,2,4 (SE = 0.82)
38.71 (24.08) 41.28 (24.17) 42.96 1 (SE = 0.80)
44.24 (21.56) 42.20 (23.45) 46.63 2 (SE = 0.98)
51.40 (22.67) 47.88 (25.66) 44.87 2 (SE = 0.97)
52.08 (23.74) 53.70 (25.83) 49.99 2 (SE = 1.01)
46.41 (22.61) 45.81 (24.88) 48.00 2 (SE = 1.01)
48.38 (21.21) 48.24 (23.31) 48.38 (SE = 0.98)
2.34 (1.54) 1.65 (1.33) 3 3.90 (1.94) 2 4.00 (2.19) 2
2.49 (1.53) 2.90 (1.15) 3 3.78 (2.12) 2 3.64 (2.21) 2
2.25 (1.56) 1.62 (1.26) 4 5.42 (2.45) 2 5.81 (2.30) 2,4
2.30 (1.52) 2.65 (1.36) 4 4.76 (2.12) 2 4.03 (2.20) 2,4
– – – –
6.42 (1.64) 1,3 6.90 (1.85) 1
7.03 (1.50) 1,3 7.11 (1.67) 1
6.84 (2.07) 1 6.30 (2.01) 1,4
6.98 (1.73) 1 7.11 (1.82) 1,4
8.70 (1.27) 1 8.39 (1.52) 1
Note: CV = covariate; 1 higher scores denote greater downward comparison (i.e., feeling that one is better than the model). Subscripts denote significant differences across planned comparisons where 1 scenery vs all other conditions; 2 thin vs average; 3 Thin Active vs Thin Posed; 4 Average Active vs Active Posed. The same subscript denotes a significant difference which is further described in the Results.
and average conditions, F(1, 285) = 0.57, p = .45, f = 0.04; the Thin Posed and Thin Active conditions, F(1, 285) = 0.35, p = .55, f = 0.03; nor between the Average Posed and Average Active conditions, F(1, 285) = 0.03, p = .85, f = 0.01. 3.2.4. Amount of functionality comparison There was no difference in the amount of functionality comparison between the thin and average conditions, F(1, 285) = 0.82, p = .36, f = 0.05. However, viewing active images produced more functionality comparisons than viewing the posed images across both the thin, F(1, 285) = 35.48, p < .001, f = 0.35, and the average conditions, F(1, 285) = 22.48, p < .001, f = 0.28. 3.2.5. Direction of appearance comparison Women who viewed the thin models engaged in more upward appearance comparison compared to women who viewed the average-sized models, F(1, 293) = 24.58, p < .001, f = 0.28. There was no difference between the Thin Posed and Thin Active conditions, F(1, 293) = 0.12, p = .73, f = 0.01, nor between Average Posed and Average Active conditions, F(1, 293) = 3.32, p = .07, f = 0.10.
3.2.7. Image appeal and effectiveness In terms of image appeal, the Scenery condition was rated as more appealing than the images of models, F(1, 372) = 78.40, p < .001, f = 0.45. There were no differences between the thin and average conditions, F(1, 372) = 0.88, p = .34, f = 0.04. Thin Active images were rated as more appealing than the Thin Posed images, F(1, 372) = 5.03, p = .02, f = 0.11. No differences emerged between the Average Posed and Average Active images, F(1, 372) = 0.27, p = .60, f = 0.03. In terms of the perceived effectiveness of the image, the Scenery images were rated as having more advertising effectiveness than the images with models, F(1, 372) = 45.81, p < .001, f = 0.35. The thin images were rated as no more effective than the average images, F(1, 372) = 2.13, p = .14, f = 0.07. The Thin Posed were not rated as different from the Thin Active images, F(1, 372) = 0.53, p = .46, f = 0.03. However, the Average Active images were rated as more effective than the Average Posed images, F(1, 372) = 7.70, p = .006, f = 0.14.
4. Discussion 3.2.6. Direction of functionality comparison Women who viewed the thin models engaged in more upward functionality comparison compared to women who viewed the average-sized models, F(1, 293) = 18.21, p < .001, f = 0.25. There was no difference between the Thin Posed and Thin Active conditions, F(1, 293) = 0.98, p = .32, f = 0.05. However, women in the Average Active condition engaged in more upward functionality comparison than women in the Average Posed condition, F(1, 293) = 22.99, p < .001, f = 0.28.
The aim of this study was to examine how model pose and body size affect women’s appearance and functionality satisfaction and comparison. Two key findings emerged. First, we found lower rates of appearance satisfaction and functionality satisfaction after viewing images of thin models compared to average-sized models. Second, we found that type of pose can affect appearance satisfaction and social comparison processes, especially for average-sized figures.
K.E. Mulgrew et al. / Body Image 32 (2020) 128–135
Our findings show that exposure to images of thin models results in poorer satisfaction with the appearance and functional components of the body compared to images of average-sized models. These findings converge with previous research showing that fuller-sized models (Diedrichs & Lee, 2011; Dittmar & Howard, 2004; Halliwell & Dittmar, 2004; Moreno-Domínguez et al., 2019) or hypermuscular models (Benton & Karazsia, 2015) typically do not trigger negative outcomes in viewers. Importantly, our findings extend this line of work by considering whether images of models in action may modify this effect. When the models were thin, there was no difference between the posed and active conditions on appearance or functionality satisfaction. However, when the models were of average body size, we found that viewers’ appearance (but not functionality) satisfaction was worse after exposure to the active models compared to the posed models. Thus, whether the model is presented with a focus on the Body-As-Object or BodyAs-Process influences viewer perception more so when the model is of average body size. Our finding for body size is consistent with that of Williamson and Karazsia (2018) in that the thinness of the model was important. Here we extend their finding from positive elements of body image (i.e., body appreciation) to measures of negative body image (i.e., both appearance dissatisfaction and functionality dissatisfaction). Williamson and Karazsia found that exposure to plus-sized (but not thin) models produced an increase in body appreciation. We found that exposure to average-sized models resulted in greater appearance and functionality satisfaction than exposure to thin models. Diedrichs and Lee (2011) also found that women with high internalisation who were exposed to average-sized models had better state body image than women exposed to thin models or no models. Thus, images of models with more diverse body sizes can affect both positive and negative measures of state body image. Our findings further extend the work of Williamson and Karazsia (2018) by showing that pose of the model may have different effects on positive and negative measures of body image. While they found no effect of pose on body appreciation, we found that models presented in active poses differed from those presented in still poses across some of our outcome measures. Compared to the images of Average Posed models, viewing the Average Active models resulted in less appearance satisfaction and higher functionality comparisons, particularly in the upward direction. Further, Thin Active images produced more functionality comparison than Thin Posed images, although they did not differ on satisfaction measures. Differences between our findings and those of Williamson and Karazsia may be due to the differences in the outcome measures used. In particular, the effects of pose were seen for satisfaction and functionality-based comparison measures, which were not included by Williamson and Karazsia. Logically, viewing images of models engaged in physical activity may trigger more thoughts about one’s own functionality, which explains the increased functionality comparisons seen in our study. Indeed, Mulgrew and Tiggemann (2018) found that viewing functional (thin) images triggered greater functionality-based comparisons than viewing posed (thin) images. However, exposure to functional images also seems to trigger poorer appearance satisfaction, at least for the Average Active image condition. Thus, there appears to be a blurring of functional and aesthetic features. Women may not clearly separate the appearance and functional components of functional images, for example, thinking that a woman “looks” fit. Interestingly, in the present study, we found that functionalitybased comparison was most consistently found in the images depicting average-sized active bodies. It may be that viewers notice additional body cues aside from thinness when faced with images of models which diverge from the traditional thin-ideal. That is, the removal of a key body dimension that women commonly attend to can allow for a more holistic viewing of the body. However, this
133
is not to say that functionality-based comparisons are not harmful. Compared to Average Posed images, viewing Average Active images triggered more upward functionality comparison; that is, thinking that the functionality of one’s body was much worse than the model. These findings affirm the importance of continuing work into functional imagery on multiple aspects of women’s body image. Consistent with previous research (e.g., Diedrichs & Lee, 2011; Dittmar & Howard, 2004), the thin models were not rated as being more appealing or effective in advertising campaigns than the average-sized models. Plus-sized and more natural depictions of women are often well received by consumers (Beale et al., 2016). Diedrichs and Lee (2011) and challenge the ‘thinness sells’ marketing line by showing that images of average-sized models (Australian size 14–16) were rated by both women and men as equally effective as images of thin models. However, pose became important in two comparisons. First, the images of Average Active models were rated as more effective than images of Average Posed models. Second, the Thin Active models were rated as more appealing than the Thin Posed models. The commonality between these two findings is that active images are generally better received than posed images. However, images of scenery were rated as more appealing and effective than both. Although these advertising effectiveness ratings were made out of context with no product shown, they do suggest that models may not necessarily need to be used. The acceptability of body shapes not traditionally seen in advertising is promising and suggests to advertisers that greater diversity in body shapes will be well received by consumers. An important extension of this study is the inclusion of greater diversity of body sizes, shapes, abilities, ages, and ethnicities. Findings should be viewed within context of the following limitations. First, we used different models in each condition. Although images were carefully pre-selected for pose, body size, and style of clothing, the models may have differed in other unanticipated ways. Personal beauty preferences were also not considered. All of our models were also Caucasian, which limits our understanding of how racially diverse images may impact upon viewers. Future research should consider whether our findings are valid when considering viewer and model race in a more nuanced manner. Although less ecologically valid, future studies might choose to digitally modify thinness levels of the same models (Dittmar & Howard, 2004; Halliwell & Dittmar, 2004). A second issue concerns our control condition which contained images of natural scenery. Recent research has suggested that exposure to images of natural environments can increase body appreciation, as also found by Williamson and Karazsia (2018), likely by eliciting pleasure and “cognitive quiet” (Swami, Barron, & Furnham, 2018). Future studies might be advised to select a more neutral control condition, such as images of furniture or interior design (e.g., Slater, Varsani, & Diedrichs, 2017). These results have important public health and advertising implications relating to how models are used in the media. Our findings, in combination with the existing literature, show that the thinness of the model is detrimental to viewers’ body satisfaction, yet these images are rated as no more effective than the average-sized models in advertising campaigns. We extend this literature by showing that pose is also important and that images with a functional focus may trigger more comparisons. If women are identifying and comparing themselves with the functional images, then this may explain why the active images were rated as better within the advertising context. Clinicians should be aware of the shift towards functional imagery and a fit-ideal preference, or as some researchers note, “strong is the new skinny” (Boepple et al., 2016; Tiggemann & Zaccardo, 2018), which is at least as detrimental, if not more so, than the traditional thin-ideal. Susceptible women might be advised to consider limiting their exposure to
134
K.E. Mulgrew et al. / Body Image 32 (2020) 128–135
thinness-promoting media and instead seek media outlets with greater body diversity (Moreno-Domínguez et al., 2019) and with body acceptance messages (“there is no right way to have a body”; Betz & Ramsey, 2017; Betz, Sabik, & Ramsey, 2019). Further, less focus on idealised images is likely to be helpful. Recent examples of more diverse depictions are the two functional public health campaigns This Girl Can and #jointhemovement, shown to improve state appearance satisfaction (Mulgrew, McCulloch, Farren, Prichard, & Lim, 2018). It is therefore important for future research to consider novel ways of promoting body acceptance and reducing the negative effects of idealised imagery within the media. In conclusion, our study found that body size and pose are important in understanding how viewers respond to idealised imagery. Exposure to images of thin models produced poorer appearance and functionality satisfaction and greater social comparison than images of average-sized models. However, functional images also elicited greater functionality-based comparison and triggered lower appearance satisfaction than posed images when models were of average body size. Research should continue to explore how different styles of image affect viewer body satisfaction.
CRediT authorship contribution statement Kate E. Mulgrew: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Supervision. Kate Schulz: Conceptualization, Writing - original draft, Investigation. Odette Norton: Conceptualization, Supervision. Marika Tiggemann: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing review & editing.
References Anschutz, D. J., Engels, R. C., Becker, E. S., & Van Strien, T. (2009). The effects of TV commercials using less thin models on young women’s mood, body image and actual food intake. Body Image, 6, 270–276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim. 2009.07.007 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016). Household use of information technology, Australia, 2014-15 Retrieved from. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/ mf/8146.0 Beale, K., Malson, H., & Tischner, I. (2016). Deconstructing “real” women: Young women’s readings of advertising images of “plus-size” models in the UK. Feminism & Psychology, 26, 378–386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0959353516639616 Benton, C., & Karazsia, B. T. (2015). The effect of thin and muscular images on women’s body satisfaction. Body Image, 13, 22–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. bodyim.2014.11.001 Bessenoff, G. R. (2006). Can the media affect us? Social comparison, self-discrepancy, and the thin ideal. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 239–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00292.x Betz, D. E., & Ramsey, L. R. (2017). Should women be “All About That Bass?”: Diverse body-ideal messages and women’s body image. Body Image, 22, 18–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.04.004 Betz, D. E., Sabik, N. J., & Ramsey, L. R. (2019). Ideal comparisons: Body ideals harm women’s body image through social comparison. Body Image, 29, 100–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.03.004 Birkeland, R., Thompson, J. K., Herbozo, S., Roehrig, M., Cafri, G., & van den Berg, P. (2005). Media exposure, mood, and body image dissatisfaction: An experimental test of person versus product priming. Body Image, 2, 53–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2004.11.002 Boepple, L., Ata, R. N., Rum, R., & Thompson, J. K. (2016). Strong is the new skinny: A content analysis of fitspiration websites. Body Image, 17, 132–135. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.03.001 Bozsik, F., Whisenhunt, B. L., Hudson, D. L., Bennett, B., & Lundgren, J. D. (2018). Thin is in? Think again: The rising importance of muscularity in the thin ideal female body. Sex Roles, 79, 609–615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-0170886-0 Cazzato, V., Siega, S., & Urgesi, C. (2012). “What women like”: influence of motion and form on esthetic body perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 235. http://dx. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00235 ´ L., & Guimond, S. (2017). The Chatard, A., Bocage-Barthélémy, Y., Selimbegovic, woman who wasn’t there: Converging evidence that subliminal social comparison affects self-evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.05.005
Diedrichs, P. C., & Lee, C. (2011). Waif goodbye! Average-size female models promote positive body image and appeal to consumers. Psychology & Health, 26, 1273–1291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2010.515308 Diedrichs, P. C., Lee, C., & Kelly, M. (2011). Seeing the beauty in everyday people: A qualitative study of young Australians’ opinions on body image, the mass media and models. Body Image, 8, 259–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. bodyim.2011.03.003 Dittmar, H., & Howard, S. (2004). Professional hazards? The impact of models’ body size on advertising effectiveness and women’s body-focused anxiety in professions that do and do not emphasize the cultural ideal of thinness. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 477–497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/ 0144666042565407 Farquhar, J. C., & Wasylkiw, L. (2007). Media images of men: Trends and consequences of body conceptualization. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8, 145–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.8.3.145 Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/ BF03193146 Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202 Franzoi, S. L. (1995). The body-as-object versus the body-as-process: Gender differences and gender considerations. Sex Roles, 33, 417–437. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/BF01954577 Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997. tb00108.x Galioto, R., & Crowther, J. H. (2013). The effects of exposure to slender and muscular images on male body dissatisfaction. Body Image, 10, 566–573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.07.009 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00332909.134.3.460 Griffiths, S., & Stefanovski, A. (2019). Thinspiration and fitspiration in everyday life: An experience sampling study. Body Image, 30, 135–144. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.bodyim.2019.07.002 Halliwell, E., & Dittmar, H. (2004). Does size matter? The impact of model’s body size on women’s body-focused anxiety and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 104–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.1. 104.26989 Heinberg, L. J., & Thompson, J. K. (1995). Body image and televised images of thinness and attractiveness: A controlled laboratory investigation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 14, 325–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp. 1995.14.4.325 Holland, G., & Tiggemann, M. (2016). A systematic review of the impact of the use of social networking sites on body image and disordered eating outcomes. Body Image, 17, 100–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.02.008 Homan, K. J. (2016). Factor structure and psychometric properties of a state version of the Body Appreciation Scale-2. Body Image, 19, 204–207. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.10.004 Homan, K., McHugh, E., Wells, D., Watson, C., & King, C. (2012). The effect of viewing ultra-fit images on college women’s body dissatisfaction. Body Image, 9, 50–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2011.07.006 Lenart, E. B., Goldberg, J. P., Bailey, S. M., Dallal, G. E., & Koff, E. (1995). Current and ideal physique choices in exercising and non-exercising college women from a pilot Athletic Image Scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 81, 831–848. http://dx. doi.org/10.2466/pms.1995.81.3.831 Levine, M. P., & Murnen, S. K. (2009). “Everybody knows that mass media are/are not [pick one] a cause of eating disorders”: A critical review of evidence for a causal link between media, negative body image, and disordered eating in females. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28, 9–42. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1521/jscp.2009.28.1.9 López-Guimerà, G., Levine, M. P., Sánchez-carracedo, D., & Fauquet, J. (2010). Influence of mass media on body image and eating disordered attitudes and behaviors in females: A review of effects and processes. Media Psychology, 13, 387–416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2010.525737 Mask, L., Blanchard, C. M., & Baker, A. (2014). Do portrayals of women in action convey another ideal that women with little self-determination feel obligated to live up to? Viewing effects on body image evaluations and eating behaviors. Appetite, 83, 277–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.08.025 Moreno-Domínguez, S., Servián-Franco, F., del Paso, G. A. R., & Cepeda-Benito, A. (2019). Images of thin and plus-size models produce opposite effects on women’s body image, body dissatisfaction, and anxiety. Sex Roles, 80, 607–616. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0951-3 Mulgrew, K. E., & Hennes, S. M. (2015). The effect of functionality-and aesthetic-focused images on Australian women’s body satisfaction. Sex Roles, 72, 127–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0440-2 Mulgrew, K. E., McCulloch, K., Farren, E., Prichard, I., & Lim, M. S. (2018). This girl can #jointhemovement: Effectiveness of physical functionality-focused campaigns for women’s body satisfaction and exercise intent. Body Image, 24, 26–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.11.007 Mulgrew, K. E., Stalley, N. L., & Tiggemann, M. (2017). Positive appearance and functionality reflections can improve body satisfaction but do not protect
K.E. Mulgrew et al. / Body Image 32 (2020) 128–135 against idealised media exposure. Body Image, 23, 126–134. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.09.002 Mulgrew, K. E., & Tiggemann, M. (2018). Form or function: Does focusing on body functionality protect women from body dissatisfaction when viewing media images? Journal of Health Psychology, 23, 84–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1359105316655471 Myers, T. A., & Crowther, J. H. (2009). Social comparison as a predictor of body dissatisfaction: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 118, 683–698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016763 Prichard, I., McLachlan, A. C., Lavis, T., & Tiggemann, M. (2018). The impact of different forms of# fitspiration imagery on body image, mood, and self-objectification among young women. Sex Roles, 78, 789–798. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s11199-017-0830-3 Slater, A., Varsani, N., & Diedrichs, P. C. (2017). #fitspo or #loveyourself? The impact of fitspiration and self-compassion Instagram images on women’s body image, self-compassion, and mood. Body Image, 22, 87–96. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.06.004 Swami, V., Barron, D., & Furnham, A. (2018). Exposure to natural environments, and photographs of natural environments, promotes more positive body image. Body Image, 24, 82–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.12.006 Thompson, J. K., van den Berg, P., Roehrig, M., Guarda, A. S., & Heinberg, L. J. (2004). The Sociocultural Attitude Towards Appearance Scale - 3 (SATAQ-3): Development and validation. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 35, 293–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.10257 Tiggemann, M. (2011). Sociocultural perspectives on human appearance and body image. In T. F. Cash & L. Smolak (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of science, practice, and prevention (pp. 12–19). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
135
Tiggemann, M., Hayden, S., Brown, Z., & Veldhuis, J. (2018). The effect of Instagram “likes” on women’s social comparison and body dissatisfaction. Body Image, 26, 90–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.07.002 Tiggemann, M., & McGill, B. (2004). The role of social comparison in the effect of magazine advertisements on women’s mood and body dissatisfaction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 23–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.1. 23.26991 Tiggemann, M., & Polivy, J. (2010). Upward and downward: Social comparison processing of thin idealized media images. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 356–364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01581.x Tiggemann, M., & Zaccardo, M. (2015). “Exercise to be fit, not skinny”: The effect of fitspiration imagery on women’s body image. Body Image, 15, 61–67. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.06.003 Tiggemann, M., & Zaccardo, M. (2018). ‘Strong is the new skinny’: A content analysis of #fitspiration images on Instagram. Journal of Health Psychology, 23, 1003–1011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359105316639436 Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. L. (2015). The Body Appreciation Scale-2: Item refinement and psychometric evaluation. Body Image, 12, 53–67. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.09.006 Uhlmann, L. R., Donovan, C. L., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Bell, H. S., & Ramme, R. A. (2018). The fit beauty ideal: A healthy alternative to thinness or a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Body Image, 25, 23–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim. 2018.01.005 Williamson, G., & Karazsia, B. T. (2018). The effect of functionality-focused and appearance-focused images of models of mixed body sizes on women’s state-oriented body appreciation. Body Image, 24, 95–101. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.bodyim.2017.12.008
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Body Image journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bodyimage
The effect of thin and average-sized models on women’s appearance and functionality satisfaction: Does pose matter? Kate E. Mulgrew a,∗ , Kate Schulz a , Odette Norton a , Marika Tiggemann b a b
University of the Sunshine Coast School of Social Sciences, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore DC, Queensland, Australia Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 9 May 2019 Received in revised form 13 December 2019 Accepted 19 December 2019 Keywords: media Functionality Body size Body satisfaction Social comparison
a b s t r a c t Idealised imagery depicting the functionality of a model’s body (e.g., in fitness contexts) can trigger negative effects in viewers similar to, or worse than, traditionally posed images of models. Thus far, most of this research has been conducted on images of thin models. Building upon previous research, we examined the effect of pose (active versus posed) and body size (thin versus average-sized) on women’s body satisfaction. In an online study, 379 women aged 17–30 years completed pre-test measures of appearance and functionality satisfaction before viewing models across one of five conditions: Thin Posed, Thin Active, Average Posed, Average Active, or Scenery images. Post-test measures were taken of body satisfaction and social comparison across appearance and functionality domains. Planned contrasts showed that exposure to thin models produced poorer appearance and functionality satisfaction and more upward comparison than exposure to average-sized models or scenery. Model pose was important only when the model had an average body size. Images of active average-sized models produced poorer appearance satisfaction and triggered more upward functionality-based comparison than when the average-sized models were posed. These findings suggest that although the thinness of the model is influential, how the body is presented can also affect satisfaction and comparison. Crown Copyright © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Sociocultural theory identifies mass media as a key trigger for body image problems in young women (Tiggemann, 2011). Across different media types, models and celebrities are frequently presented in idealised formats with a focus on appearance (Levine & Murnen, 2009). Further, appearance is often conflated with selfworth and women are presented as objects to be viewed for the gratification of others potentially resulting in feelings of objectification (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Young women are frequently exposed to these idealised and unrealistic images in mass media. In Australia, individuals under 35 years report the highest amount of Internet usage, with social networking and entertainment being the most popular forms of online activity (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016). Research suggests that both traditional and social media exposure are linked with negative mental health outcomes, such as disordered eating behaviours, excessive exercise, and body
∗ Corresponding author at: School of Social Sciences, University of the Sunshine Coast, Locked Bag 4, Maroochydore DC, Queensland, 4558, Australia. E-mail address: [email protected] (K.E. Mulgrew). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.12.004 1740-1445/Crown Copyright © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
dissatisfaction, in women (Grabe, Ward, & Hyde, 2008; Holland & Tiggemann, 2016). Extending upon the existing evidence base for thin-ideal media in particular to trigger negative outcomes in viewers (Grabe et al., 2008), researchers have begun to investigate other forms of idealised imagery, such as functional imagery. These images display women in action with a focus on the physical capabilities of their body. Like the traditional posed thin-ideal imagery, functionalbased images still depict primarily thin and attractive young women, often presented in objectified ways. On the one hand, imagery of fit and active women may help to diversify media content and encourage women to engage in physical activity. On the other hand, some research has suggested that these depictions have produced yet another difficult standard for women to achieve (Bozsik, Whisenhunt, Hudson, Bennett, & Lundgren, 2018; Mask, Blanchard, & Baker, 2014) with some researchers labeling it as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” (Uhlmann, Donovan, Zimmer-Gembeck, Bell, & Ramme, 2018). One example is ‘fitspiration’ imagery; a common trend across social media which contains a mixture of functional and non-functional imagery alongside “inspirational” messages to promote exercise and healthy living. In reality, fitspiration glorifies an idealised and sexualised appearance, with some anti-fat content similar to pro-anorexia sites, such as messages with
K.E. Mulgrew et al. / Body Image 32 (2020) 128–135
weight stigmatising and food guilt themes (Boepple, Ata, Rum, & Thompson, 2016; Tiggemann & Zaccardo, 2018). Despite its positive aim, exposure to fitspiration has been shown to negatively affect body satisfaction, mood, and appearance-based self-esteem in young adult women (Griffiths & Stefanovski, 2019; Tiggemann & Zaccardo, 2015). Functional imagery is also common outside of the fitspiration trend and coincides with a rise in preference for an athletic body shape (e.g., Lenart, Goldberg, Bailey, Dallal, & Koff, 1995; Thompson, van den Berg, Roehrig, Guarda, & Heinberg, 2004). Functional imagery typically shows women engaged in physical activity but without the ‘inspirational’ quotes found on Instagram. Increased research on functional imagery has shown that, like the traditional posed thin-ideal, these images too can trigger negative outcomes in viewers. There are two important components to consider when examining the impact of functional images. First, research has shown that type of pose is important. According to Franzoi (1995), the body can be viewed and presented in one of two ways: either as an object to be viewed (Body-As-Object) or as a functional entity (BodyAs-Process). Models in thin-ideal imagery are often highly posed while models in fitness-based imagery are often shown engaged in activity. This difference may affect viewer perception. For example, research has found that images of women when walking were rated as more attractive, beautiful, and likeable compared to the same women shown standing still (Cazzato, Siega, & Urgesi, 2012). In addition, several studies have found that exposure to active thin imagery (i.e., depicting Body-As-Process) can result in negative outcomes. Compared to a neutral condition, both Body-As-Object and Body-As-Process content has been shown to negatively affect state body satisfaction (Mask et al., 2014; Mulgrew & Hennes, 2015; Prichard, McLachlan, Lavis, & Tiggemann, 2018) and fitness satisfaction (Mulgrew & Hennes, 2015). In fact, some research has found that viewing functional images can trigger worse outcomes than viewing posed models. For example, satisfaction with body competence was lower after viewing process-oriented commercials than appearance-focused commercials (Mask et al., 2014). Mulgrew and Tiggemann (2018) found that negative body image outcomes were most pronounced when women were exposed to Body-As-Process imagery, were asked to attend to the functional components of the model’s body, and engaged in greater levels of functionalitybased social comparison. Together, these findings suggest that thin functional-style imagery can trigger similar or worse outcomes compared to traditionally posed imagery of models. The second factor to consider when examining the impact of functional images is the body size of the models. Research suggests that it is the thinness of the model that is critical, as exposure to models who are less thin or fuller-figured tend not to trigger body dissatisfaction in viewers. For example, research has shown that exposure to imagery of average-sized models resulted in greater state body satisfaction (Diedrichs & Lee, 2011) and less body-related anxiety (Dittmar & Howard, 2004; Halliwell & Dittmar, 2004) than exposure to imagery of thin women, particularly for participants with higher levels of internalization or for women working in appearance-focused professions. Most recently, Moreno-Domínguez, Servián-Franco, del Paso, and Cepeda-Benito (2019) found that exposure to images of overweight models reduced state body dissatisfaction while exposure to thin models increased body dissatisfaction and anxiety. Within the social media context, Tiggemann, Hayden, Brown, and Veldhuis (2018) found that exposure to thin Instagram models led to greater body dissatisfaction and facial dissatisfaction than exposure to averagesized Instagram models. However, some research has found that exposure to “average sized or slightly oversized” models in television commercials resulted in greater sadness and food intake compared to thin models (Anschutz, Engels, Becker, & Van Strien, 2009). It seems likely that the thinness of the model will remain an
129
important consideration in the context of functional imagery. For example, one paper found that post-exposure state body dissatisfaction was higher for women who viewed the thin athletic models compared to neutral images, but there were no differences for women who viewed the average weight athletic images (Homan, McHugh, Wells, Watson, & King, 2012). Collectively, it appears that the thinness of the model is an important trigger of body dissatisfaction in women. To date, there has been very little research bringing together the components of pose and body size. In the only known study (published during our data collection), Williamson and Karazsia (2018) tested the impact of body size and body pose on body appreciation. As a measure of positive body image, body appreciation refers to the amount of love, respect, and value that is placed on various elements of the body and is seen as something more than the mere absence of negative body image or body dissatisfaction (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015). It can be conceptualised as both a trait (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015) and a state construct (Homan, 2016). Williamson and Karazsia exposed young adult women to images of posed or active models who were either thin or fuller-figured. They found that women exposed to the thin models showed no change in state body appreciation while women who viewed images of nature scenery or the fuller-figured models showed an increase in body appreciation. There was no effect of pose. Thus, only body size of the model affected viewers’ body appreciation. As yet, these effects have not been tested on any index of negative body image. A key process through which media exposure can influence body satisfaction is via social comparison (López-Guimerà, Levine, Sánchez-carracedo, & Fauquet, 2010; Myers & Crowther, 2009; Tiggemann & Polivy, 2010). There is some evidence that comparisons with relevant others are automatic (Chatard, Bocage´ & Guimond, 2017) and help us to gather Barthélémy, Selimbegovic, information about our relative standing on important domains (Festinger, 1954). Social comparison can occur in two directions with different consequences. Upward social comparison occurs when a viewer compares themself to someone whom they consider superior on an important domain. Exposure to idealised media often triggers upward social comparison (Myers & Crowther, 2009), which can result in body dissatisfaction and compensatory behaviours such as excessive exercise and disordered eating (Bessenoff, 2006; Tiggemann & Polivy, 2010). On the other hand, downward social comparison occurs when a viewer compares themselves to someone whom they consider inferior on an important domain. For example, Tiggemann and Polivy (2010) found that comparisons to models based on intelligence were negatively associated with body dissatisfaction. Although most research has focused on appearance-based social comparison, there is evidence that comparison with idealised models along functionality domains also results in dissatisfaction with one’s own appearance and functionality. For example, Mulgrew and Tiggemann (2018) found that amount of functionality-based comparison did not moderate responses to posed images but did so for active images. Specifically, greater functionality-based comparisons were associated with poorer functionality satisfaction after viewing active images. Further, greater appearance-based comparisons were associated with poorer appearance and functionality satisfaction, regardless of image style. Thus, it appears that both the processes of appearance and functionality comparison are important and hence were measured within our study. Finally, there has been consistent discussion within the body image literature of the need for greater representation of different body sizes, shapes, and abilities in media and advertising (e.g., Diedrichs, Lee, & Kelly, 2011). Within an advertising context, images of women with larger bodies are often well-received (Beale, Malson, & Tischner, 2016), rated as equally effective as thin images
130
K.E. Mulgrew et al. / Body Image 32 (2020) 128–135
(Diedrichs & Lee, 2011) and are perceived to have benefits to viewers’ body image (Diedrichs et al., 2011). To assist with our cover story, we therefore asked participants about the overall appeal and advertising effectiveness of our images. The aim of the current study was to examine the combined effects of model body size (thin versus average-weight models, henceforth referred to as Thin and Average) and model pose (referred to as Posed versus Active) on women’s appearance satisfaction and functionality satisfaction. These were compared to a Scenery control condition. We also examined the impact on the potential mechanisms of amount and direction of comparison on the basis of appearance and functionality. Finally, we tested the overall appeal and perceived effectiveness within the advertising. In line with previous research examining body size of the model, we hypothesised that women exposed to the thin models would have poorer post-exposure appearance satisfaction, functionality satisfaction, and greater comparison compared to those exposed to the average models (and Scenery). Although there is some inconsistency in past research regarding the effects of model pose, research has generally found that models in posed and active stances produce similarly poor outcomes in viewers, with a small number of studies finding active thin images to be particularly problematic. Therefore, we tentatively predicted a greater difference in outcomes between the active and posed conditions when images are thin than when images are average-sized. Finally, in line with previous research, we expected that the average-sized models would be rated equally as appealing and effective as the thin models. 2. Method 2.1. Participants The final sample consisted of 379 women aged 17–30 years (M = 21.03, SD = 3.50 years) recruited from the university and general community. The average body mass index was 24.40 (SD = 5.92), with 10 % being low weight (i.e., “underweight”), 56.5 % medium weight (i.e., “normal” weight), 17.5 % high weight (i.e., “overweight”), and 16 % very high weight (i.e., “obese”). Most women (70 %) were Australian citizens or residents, most identified as Caucasian (87 %), and most (67 %) were currently attending university. 2.2. Materials 2.2.1. Experimental images Five sets of images were used: Thin Posed models, Average Posed models, Thin Active models, Average Active models, and Scenery. Participants only viewed one image set. Each set contained eight images of Caucasian models followed by two questions. Participants were encouraged to consider each image for about 30 s before answering appeal and effectiveness questions. The Thin Active and Posed images were taken from Mulgrew and Tiggemann (2018). This set of images had previously been carefully selected and matched on thinness and attractiveness. All images showed at least 80 % of the model’s body, were front- or side-facing, the model appeared to be a young adult, was wearing swimwear or activewear, and was considered attractive. The difference between active and posed images was guided by Body Conceptualisation theory and Farquhar and Wasylkiw’s (2007) guidelines of “level of activity” and “level of pose.” Active images depicted the body in action. Conversely, the body in posed images was stylised with a focus on the appearance of the model. The average-sized images were newly sourced by the research team. They were chosen to have more visible body weight and represent Australian size 12-14. Eighteen women aged 17–35 years
(M = 24.61, SD = 4.62 years) rated the body size (“How thin or slender is this model?”) of a preliminary set of average-sized images on a 1 (not at all) – 10 (very) rating scale. From these, we retained the average-sized images that could be matched to the existing thin images. We ensured that both the thin and average sets of images wore similar styles of revealing activewear and swimwear and that the amount of visible body was similar. For example, models in both sets wore clothing such as two-piece bikinis with visible arms, legs, midriff, and chest. The two newly developed sets of Average Posed (M = 5.52, SD = 0.55) and Average Active (M = 5.91, SD = 1.35) images were rated as significantly less thin than the Thin Posed (M = 8.52, SD = 1.04), t(14) = -7.08, p < .001, and Thin Active images (M = 7.75, SD = 0.92), t(14) = -3.16, p < .01, respectively, from Mulgrew and Tiggemann (2018). As intended, there were no differences on thinness between the Thin Posed (M = 8.52, SD = 1.05) and Thin Active images (M = 7.75, SD = 0.92), t(14) = 1.56, p = .14, or between the Average Posed (M = 5.27, SD = 0.55) and Average Active images (M = 5.91, SD = 1.35), t(14) = -0.73, p = .47. All images were sourced from websites across the Internet, including health and fitness sites, fashion sites, magazines, and blogs. Information was not provided on whether these images had been altered in any way (e.g., filters or Photoshop). The photos were of a professional standard but the models were not famous. Models in the Active conditions were wearing revealing sportswear (e.g., crop top and leggings) while models in the Posed conditions were wearing revealing swimwear (e.g., bikini). Models in the active images were engaged in a range of physical activities (e.g., lifting weights, yoga). The scenery images contained images of landscapes with no people, sourced via a google search for “natural landscapes.” Scenery images were chosen to provide a visually appealing image that was unrelated to appearance.
2.2.2. Image appeal and effectiveness After each image, participants were asked to rate the overall appeal (“Overall, this image is appealing”) of the image followed by the perceived effectiveness of the image in advertising campaigns. Participants received one of two versions of this effectiveness question dependent upon whether they viewed images with models (“This image would be effective in advertising lifestyle products in fitness or fashion magazines”) or scenery (“This image would be effective in advertising holiday deals in a range of lifestyle magazines”). Responses were made on a 1–10 Likert scale where higher scores indicated appeal or effectiveness. These ratings also ensured attention to and engagement with the images.
2.2.3. State appearance and functionality satisfaction Visual analogue scales (VAS; Heinberg & Thompson, 1995) were used to measure satisfaction with appearance and functionality. Participants were asked how satisfied they were “right now” with dimensions of their appearance (four items: satisfaction with their body fat, weight and shape, overall appearance, and body tone) and dimensions of functionality (four items: satisfaction with health and fitness, everything their body can do, physical capabilities, how their body can move). An additional four items about current mood served as distractors. Participants indicated their responses by moving a slider between the end-points of “not at all” to “very much.” Responses were scored from 0 to 100 with higher scores indicating greater level of the construct. Participants could not see these scores to help prevent recall of previous responses across the multiple administrations. These brief measures are commonly used to measure response to media with strong test-retest reliability (Birkeland et al., 2005). In our sample, internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was high for the appearance satisfaction items (␣ = .93) and for the functionality satisfaction items (␣ = .91).
K.E. Mulgrew et al. / Body Image 32 (2020) 128–135
2.2.4. Social comparison Amount of comparison to imagery was assessed using items from Tiggemann and McGill (2004) and Mulgrew and Tiggemann (2018). Participants were asked how much they thought about and compared their appearance (six items) and functionality (six items) to the models previously viewed. Specifically, three items asked about how much they thought about their appearance (one item each relating to appearance, body fat and weight, and body shape) while three items asked about their comparison to the models along those appearance dimensions. An example item is: “How much did you think about your appearance while viewing the models?”. The same format was repeated with the functionality dimensions, so that three items asked about how much they thought about the functionality of their body (one item each relating to fitness, physical strength, what your body can do/ how your body can move) and three items asked about their comparison to the models on these dimensions. An example item is: “How much did you compare your physical strength while viewing the images of the models?” Responses were made using a VAS anchored with not at all (0) to very much (5). Items were averaged to create a total score for appearance comparison and a total score for functionality comparison. High internal reliability was found for both appearance comparison (␣ = .97) and functionality comparison (␣ = .94). The direction of appearance and functionality comparison was measured via two items (Galioto & Crowther, 2013; Mulgrew, Stalley, & Tiggemann, 2017). Participants were asked whether they believed that their appearance (Item 1) and their health, fitness and strength (Item 2) was much worse (0) or much better (10) than the women in the viewed images on a 10-point Likert scale. Thus, lower scores (< 5) indicate upward social comparison and higher scores (> 5) indicate downward social comparison. 2.2.5. Attention check and manipulation awareness Participants were asked to remember a number that was placed towards the end of the image set. All participants answered this question correctly. Participants were asked to describe the purpose of the study upon completion of the survey. No responses were consistent with the study aims. 2.2.6. Demographic information Participants reported on age, height, weight, and whether they were currently attending university. 2.3. Procedure Ethics approval was granted by University of the Sunshine Coast. Women aged 17–30 years were invited to complete an online study examining responses to images commonly used in fitness and fashion magazines. Recruitment sources included social media, flyers, and teaching sites. Upon entering the survey, participants completed demographic questions and the pre-test VAS. Participants were then randomly allocated to one of five conditions by the SurveyMonkey program. Within each condition, participants viewed the allocated set of images and the engagement questions. Participants then completed the attention check question, the post-test VAS, and the appearance and functionality comparison questions. The manipulation awareness question was then presented before a debriefing statement with links to support services if needed. In total, the study took about 15 min. 3. Results
131
were non-viable (e.g., male, made more than one attempt, older than 31 years; n = 66). Other missing or incomplete data were minimal and therefore these participants were retained. An a priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) which showed that a minimum of 302 participants were needed to detect a medium effect size in the context of 5 groups with 3 covariates with power of 0.95. Our final sample size of 379 met this criterion. Effect sizes (f ) were also calculated via G*Power and can be interpreted as small (0.10), medium (0.25), or large (0.40). Data were reasonably normally distributed with no outliers and no breaches of assumptions. Further, there were no significant initial differences between the five conditions on age, BMI, or any pre-test VAS (all ps > .05), suggesting that random allocation to condition was successful. Table 1 shows the intercorrelations between the pre- and post-test VAS measures, age, and BMI. 3.2. Main analyses Analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were conducted with image type as the independent variable, post-test appearance or functionality satisfaction as the dependent variable, and respective pre-test satisfaction scores as covariates. Planned comparisons were conducted using LMATRIX. The first comparison tested all conditions against Scenery (-1, -1, -1, -1, +4). The second comparison tested the difference between thin versus average images (+1, +1, -1, -1, 0). The third and fourth comparisons examined the effect of pose within each body size: Thin Active versus Thin Posed (+1, -1, 0, 0, 0) and Average Active versus Average Posed (0, 0, -1, +1, 0). This analysis was also repeated, with the covariate removed, with the dependent variables of appearance and functionality comparison, direction of appearance and functionality comparison, image appeal, and image effectiveness. Means are shown in Table 2. 3.2.1. Appearance satisfaction The first comparison showed a significant difference between the Scenery and combined conditions containing models, F(1, 337) = 4.39, p = .03, f = 0.11, with the Scenery condition producing greater appearance satisfaction. The thin versus average comparison was statistically significant, F(1, 337) = 25.98, p < .01, f = 0.27. As can be seen in Table 2, appearance satisfaction was lower after viewing the thin models compared to the average-sized models. The third comparison showed that there was no significant difference between Thin Active and Thin Posed, F(1, 337) = 0.20, p = .65, f = 0.03. However, the effect of pose was seen within the average conditions, with the fourth comparison showing that appearance satisfaction was higher after viewing Average Posed compared to Average Active images, F(1, 337) = 4.02, p = .04, f = 0.11. 3.2.2. Functionality satisfaction There was no significant difference between the Scenery and model conditions, F(1, 341) = 0.82, p = .36, f = 0.04. The second comparison of thin versus average was statistically significant, F(1, 341) = 10.72, p = .001, f = 0.17. Table 2 shows that viewing the thin images resulted in lower functionality satisfaction than viewing the average-sized images. The next comparison, which looked at the effect of pose within the thin conditions, showed there to be no significant difference between the Thin Posed and Thin Active models, F(1, 341) = 1.60, p = .20, f = 0.07. There was also no effect of pose within the average-sized images, with no significant difference between Average Active and Average Posed, F(1, 341) = 1.95, p = .16, f = 0.07.
3.1. Statistical considerations Participants were removed if they exited the survey prior to the baseline VAS (n = 30), did not complete the post-test VAS (n = 36) or
3.2.3. Amount of appearance comparison All three comparisons were nonsignificant. There was no difference in the amount of appearance comparison between the thin
132
K.E. Mulgrew et al. / Body Image 32 (2020) 128–135
Table 1 Intercorrelations Between Pre- and Post-Test State Appearance and Functionality Satisfaction, Age, and BMI.
1. Age 2. BMI 3. Pre App. Satisfaction 4. Post App. Satisfaction 5. Pre Funct. Satisfaction 6. Post Funct. Satisfaction 7. Amount App. Comparison 8. Amount Funct. Comparison 9. Direction App. Comparison 10. Direction Funct. Comparison
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
.18** −.05 −.05 −.006 −.007 −.06 −.06 −.13* −.07
−.45** −.43** −.30** −.30** .10 .06 −.37** −.28**
.96** .69** .73** −.41** −.24** .49** .45**
.71** .77** −.43** −.27** .55** .50**
.94** −.20** −.11* .49** .60**
−.28** −.21** .52** .61**
.66** −.29** −.20**
−.23** −.28**
.67**
Note: BMI = body mass index; App = appearance; Funct = functionality; **p < .01, *p < .05. Correlations including comparison measures do not include participants who viewed the scenery images.
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Appearance and Functionality Satisfaction, Social Comparison, and Appeal of Images Across the Five Conditions.
Appearance satisfaction Pre Post Post, CV adjusted Functionality satisfaction Pre Post Post, CV adjusted State social comparison Amount, appearance Amount, functionality Direction, appearance1 Direction, functionality1 Image ratings Appeal Effectiveness
Thin Posed n = 78 M (SD)
Thin Active n = 75 M (SD)
Average Posed n = 71 M (SD)
Average Active n = 78 M (SD)
Scenery n = 77 M (SD)
43.02 (24.58) 41.58 (26.82) 38.75 1,2 (SE = 0.78)
43.39 (26.28) 42.45 (26.08) 39.25 1,2 (SE = 0.80)
39.65 (26.40) 43.75 (27.86) 44.33 1,2,4 (SE = 0.83)
35.99 (24.06) 37.70 (26.23) 41.98 1,2,4 (SE = 0.82)
38.71 (24.08) 41.28 (24.17) 42.96 1 (SE = 0.80)
44.24 (21.56) 42.20 (23.45) 46.63 2 (SE = 0.98)
51.40 (22.67) 47.88 (25.66) 44.87 2 (SE = 0.97)
52.08 (23.74) 53.70 (25.83) 49.99 2 (SE = 1.01)
46.41 (22.61) 45.81 (24.88) 48.00 2 (SE = 1.01)
48.38 (21.21) 48.24 (23.31) 48.38 (SE = 0.98)
2.34 (1.54) 1.65 (1.33) 3 3.90 (1.94) 2 4.00 (2.19) 2
2.49 (1.53) 2.90 (1.15) 3 3.78 (2.12) 2 3.64 (2.21) 2
2.25 (1.56) 1.62 (1.26) 4 5.42 (2.45) 2 5.81 (2.30) 2,4
2.30 (1.52) 2.65 (1.36) 4 4.76 (2.12) 2 4.03 (2.20) 2,4
– – – –
6.42 (1.64) 1,3 6.90 (1.85) 1
7.03 (1.50) 1,3 7.11 (1.67) 1
6.84 (2.07) 1 6.30 (2.01) 1,4
6.98 (1.73) 1 7.11 (1.82) 1,4
8.70 (1.27) 1 8.39 (1.52) 1
Note: CV = covariate; 1 higher scores denote greater downward comparison (i.e., feeling that one is better than the model). Subscripts denote significant differences across planned comparisons where 1 scenery vs all other conditions; 2 thin vs average; 3 Thin Active vs Thin Posed; 4 Average Active vs Active Posed. The same subscript denotes a significant difference which is further described in the Results.
and average conditions, F(1, 285) = 0.57, p = .45, f = 0.04; the Thin Posed and Thin Active conditions, F(1, 285) = 0.35, p = .55, f = 0.03; nor between the Average Posed and Average Active conditions, F(1, 285) = 0.03, p = .85, f = 0.01. 3.2.4. Amount of functionality comparison There was no difference in the amount of functionality comparison between the thin and average conditions, F(1, 285) = 0.82, p = .36, f = 0.05. However, viewing active images produced more functionality comparisons than viewing the posed images across both the thin, F(1, 285) = 35.48, p < .001, f = 0.35, and the average conditions, F(1, 285) = 22.48, p < .001, f = 0.28. 3.2.5. Direction of appearance comparison Women who viewed the thin models engaged in more upward appearance comparison compared to women who viewed the average-sized models, F(1, 293) = 24.58, p < .001, f = 0.28. There was no difference between the Thin Posed and Thin Active conditions, F(1, 293) = 0.12, p = .73, f = 0.01, nor between Average Posed and Average Active conditions, F(1, 293) = 3.32, p = .07, f = 0.10.
3.2.7. Image appeal and effectiveness In terms of image appeal, the Scenery condition was rated as more appealing than the images of models, F(1, 372) = 78.40, p < .001, f = 0.45. There were no differences between the thin and average conditions, F(1, 372) = 0.88, p = .34, f = 0.04. Thin Active images were rated as more appealing than the Thin Posed images, F(1, 372) = 5.03, p = .02, f = 0.11. No differences emerged between the Average Posed and Average Active images, F(1, 372) = 0.27, p = .60, f = 0.03. In terms of the perceived effectiveness of the image, the Scenery images were rated as having more advertising effectiveness than the images with models, F(1, 372) = 45.81, p < .001, f = 0.35. The thin images were rated as no more effective than the average images, F(1, 372) = 2.13, p = .14, f = 0.07. The Thin Posed were not rated as different from the Thin Active images, F(1, 372) = 0.53, p = .46, f = 0.03. However, the Average Active images were rated as more effective than the Average Posed images, F(1, 372) = 7.70, p = .006, f = 0.14.
4. Discussion 3.2.6. Direction of functionality comparison Women who viewed the thin models engaged in more upward functionality comparison compared to women who viewed the average-sized models, F(1, 293) = 18.21, p < .001, f = 0.25. There was no difference between the Thin Posed and Thin Active conditions, F(1, 293) = 0.98, p = .32, f = 0.05. However, women in the Average Active condition engaged in more upward functionality comparison than women in the Average Posed condition, F(1, 293) = 22.99, p < .001, f = 0.28.
The aim of this study was to examine how model pose and body size affect women’s appearance and functionality satisfaction and comparison. Two key findings emerged. First, we found lower rates of appearance satisfaction and functionality satisfaction after viewing images of thin models compared to average-sized models. Second, we found that type of pose can affect appearance satisfaction and social comparison processes, especially for average-sized figures.
K.E. Mulgrew et al. / Body Image 32 (2020) 128–135
Our findings show that exposure to images of thin models results in poorer satisfaction with the appearance and functional components of the body compared to images of average-sized models. These findings converge with previous research showing that fuller-sized models (Diedrichs & Lee, 2011; Dittmar & Howard, 2004; Halliwell & Dittmar, 2004; Moreno-Domínguez et al., 2019) or hypermuscular models (Benton & Karazsia, 2015) typically do not trigger negative outcomes in viewers. Importantly, our findings extend this line of work by considering whether images of models in action may modify this effect. When the models were thin, there was no difference between the posed and active conditions on appearance or functionality satisfaction. However, when the models were of average body size, we found that viewers’ appearance (but not functionality) satisfaction was worse after exposure to the active models compared to the posed models. Thus, whether the model is presented with a focus on the Body-As-Object or BodyAs-Process influences viewer perception more so when the model is of average body size. Our finding for body size is consistent with that of Williamson and Karazsia (2018) in that the thinness of the model was important. Here we extend their finding from positive elements of body image (i.e., body appreciation) to measures of negative body image (i.e., both appearance dissatisfaction and functionality dissatisfaction). Williamson and Karazsia found that exposure to plus-sized (but not thin) models produced an increase in body appreciation. We found that exposure to average-sized models resulted in greater appearance and functionality satisfaction than exposure to thin models. Diedrichs and Lee (2011) also found that women with high internalisation who were exposed to average-sized models had better state body image than women exposed to thin models or no models. Thus, images of models with more diverse body sizes can affect both positive and negative measures of state body image. Our findings further extend the work of Williamson and Karazsia (2018) by showing that pose of the model may have different effects on positive and negative measures of body image. While they found no effect of pose on body appreciation, we found that models presented in active poses differed from those presented in still poses across some of our outcome measures. Compared to the images of Average Posed models, viewing the Average Active models resulted in less appearance satisfaction and higher functionality comparisons, particularly in the upward direction. Further, Thin Active images produced more functionality comparison than Thin Posed images, although they did not differ on satisfaction measures. Differences between our findings and those of Williamson and Karazsia may be due to the differences in the outcome measures used. In particular, the effects of pose were seen for satisfaction and functionality-based comparison measures, which were not included by Williamson and Karazsia. Logically, viewing images of models engaged in physical activity may trigger more thoughts about one’s own functionality, which explains the increased functionality comparisons seen in our study. Indeed, Mulgrew and Tiggemann (2018) found that viewing functional (thin) images triggered greater functionality-based comparisons than viewing posed (thin) images. However, exposure to functional images also seems to trigger poorer appearance satisfaction, at least for the Average Active image condition. Thus, there appears to be a blurring of functional and aesthetic features. Women may not clearly separate the appearance and functional components of functional images, for example, thinking that a woman “looks” fit. Interestingly, in the present study, we found that functionalitybased comparison was most consistently found in the images depicting average-sized active bodies. It may be that viewers notice additional body cues aside from thinness when faced with images of models which diverge from the traditional thin-ideal. That is, the removal of a key body dimension that women commonly attend to can allow for a more holistic viewing of the body. However, this
133
is not to say that functionality-based comparisons are not harmful. Compared to Average Posed images, viewing Average Active images triggered more upward functionality comparison; that is, thinking that the functionality of one’s body was much worse than the model. These findings affirm the importance of continuing work into functional imagery on multiple aspects of women’s body image. Consistent with previous research (e.g., Diedrichs & Lee, 2011; Dittmar & Howard, 2004), the thin models were not rated as being more appealing or effective in advertising campaigns than the average-sized models. Plus-sized and more natural depictions of women are often well received by consumers (Beale et al., 2016). Diedrichs and Lee (2011) and challenge the ‘thinness sells’ marketing line by showing that images of average-sized models (Australian size 14–16) were rated by both women and men as equally effective as images of thin models. However, pose became important in two comparisons. First, the images of Average Active models were rated as more effective than images of Average Posed models. Second, the Thin Active models were rated as more appealing than the Thin Posed models. The commonality between these two findings is that active images are generally better received than posed images. However, images of scenery were rated as more appealing and effective than both. Although these advertising effectiveness ratings were made out of context with no product shown, they do suggest that models may not necessarily need to be used. The acceptability of body shapes not traditionally seen in advertising is promising and suggests to advertisers that greater diversity in body shapes will be well received by consumers. An important extension of this study is the inclusion of greater diversity of body sizes, shapes, abilities, ages, and ethnicities. Findings should be viewed within context of the following limitations. First, we used different models in each condition. Although images were carefully pre-selected for pose, body size, and style of clothing, the models may have differed in other unanticipated ways. Personal beauty preferences were also not considered. All of our models were also Caucasian, which limits our understanding of how racially diverse images may impact upon viewers. Future research should consider whether our findings are valid when considering viewer and model race in a more nuanced manner. Although less ecologically valid, future studies might choose to digitally modify thinness levels of the same models (Dittmar & Howard, 2004; Halliwell & Dittmar, 2004). A second issue concerns our control condition which contained images of natural scenery. Recent research has suggested that exposure to images of natural environments can increase body appreciation, as also found by Williamson and Karazsia (2018), likely by eliciting pleasure and “cognitive quiet” (Swami, Barron, & Furnham, 2018). Future studies might be advised to select a more neutral control condition, such as images of furniture or interior design (e.g., Slater, Varsani, & Diedrichs, 2017). These results have important public health and advertising implications relating to how models are used in the media. Our findings, in combination with the existing literature, show that the thinness of the model is detrimental to viewers’ body satisfaction, yet these images are rated as no more effective than the average-sized models in advertising campaigns. We extend this literature by showing that pose is also important and that images with a functional focus may trigger more comparisons. If women are identifying and comparing themselves with the functional images, then this may explain why the active images were rated as better within the advertising context. Clinicians should be aware of the shift towards functional imagery and a fit-ideal preference, or as some researchers note, “strong is the new skinny” (Boepple et al., 2016; Tiggemann & Zaccardo, 2018), which is at least as detrimental, if not more so, than the traditional thin-ideal. Susceptible women might be advised to consider limiting their exposure to
134
K.E. Mulgrew et al. / Body Image 32 (2020) 128–135
thinness-promoting media and instead seek media outlets with greater body diversity (Moreno-Domínguez et al., 2019) and with body acceptance messages (“there is no right way to have a body”; Betz & Ramsey, 2017; Betz, Sabik, & Ramsey, 2019). Further, less focus on idealised images is likely to be helpful. Recent examples of more diverse depictions are the two functional public health campaigns This Girl Can and #jointhemovement, shown to improve state appearance satisfaction (Mulgrew, McCulloch, Farren, Prichard, & Lim, 2018). It is therefore important for future research to consider novel ways of promoting body acceptance and reducing the negative effects of idealised imagery within the media. In conclusion, our study found that body size and pose are important in understanding how viewers respond to idealised imagery. Exposure to images of thin models produced poorer appearance and functionality satisfaction and greater social comparison than images of average-sized models. However, functional images also elicited greater functionality-based comparison and triggered lower appearance satisfaction than posed images when models were of average body size. Research should continue to explore how different styles of image affect viewer body satisfaction.
CRediT authorship contribution statement Kate E. Mulgrew: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Supervision. Kate Schulz: Conceptualization, Writing - original draft, Investigation. Odette Norton: Conceptualization, Supervision. Marika Tiggemann: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing review & editing.
References Anschutz, D. J., Engels, R. C., Becker, E. S., & Van Strien, T. (2009). The effects of TV commercials using less thin models on young women’s mood, body image and actual food intake. Body Image, 6, 270–276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim. 2009.07.007 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016). Household use of information technology, Australia, 2014-15 Retrieved from. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/ mf/8146.0 Beale, K., Malson, H., & Tischner, I. (2016). Deconstructing “real” women: Young women’s readings of advertising images of “plus-size” models in the UK. Feminism & Psychology, 26, 378–386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0959353516639616 Benton, C., & Karazsia, B. T. (2015). The effect of thin and muscular images on women’s body satisfaction. Body Image, 13, 22–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. bodyim.2014.11.001 Bessenoff, G. R. (2006). Can the media affect us? Social comparison, self-discrepancy, and the thin ideal. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 239–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00292.x Betz, D. E., & Ramsey, L. R. (2017). Should women be “All About That Bass?”: Diverse body-ideal messages and women’s body image. Body Image, 22, 18–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.04.004 Betz, D. E., Sabik, N. J., & Ramsey, L. R. (2019). Ideal comparisons: Body ideals harm women’s body image through social comparison. Body Image, 29, 100–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.03.004 Birkeland, R., Thompson, J. K., Herbozo, S., Roehrig, M., Cafri, G., & van den Berg, P. (2005). Media exposure, mood, and body image dissatisfaction: An experimental test of person versus product priming. Body Image, 2, 53–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2004.11.002 Boepple, L., Ata, R. N., Rum, R., & Thompson, J. K. (2016). Strong is the new skinny: A content analysis of fitspiration websites. Body Image, 17, 132–135. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.03.001 Bozsik, F., Whisenhunt, B. L., Hudson, D. L., Bennett, B., & Lundgren, J. D. (2018). Thin is in? Think again: The rising importance of muscularity in the thin ideal female body. Sex Roles, 79, 609–615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-0170886-0 Cazzato, V., Siega, S., & Urgesi, C. (2012). “What women like”: influence of motion and form on esthetic body perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 235. http://dx. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00235 ´ L., & Guimond, S. (2017). The Chatard, A., Bocage-Barthélémy, Y., Selimbegovic, woman who wasn’t there: Converging evidence that subliminal social comparison affects self-evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.05.005
Diedrichs, P. C., & Lee, C. (2011). Waif goodbye! Average-size female models promote positive body image and appeal to consumers. Psychology & Health, 26, 1273–1291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2010.515308 Diedrichs, P. C., Lee, C., & Kelly, M. (2011). Seeing the beauty in everyday people: A qualitative study of young Australians’ opinions on body image, the mass media and models. Body Image, 8, 259–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. bodyim.2011.03.003 Dittmar, H., & Howard, S. (2004). Professional hazards? The impact of models’ body size on advertising effectiveness and women’s body-focused anxiety in professions that do and do not emphasize the cultural ideal of thinness. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 477–497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/ 0144666042565407 Farquhar, J. C., & Wasylkiw, L. (2007). Media images of men: Trends and consequences of body conceptualization. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8, 145–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.8.3.145 Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/ BF03193146 Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202 Franzoi, S. L. (1995). The body-as-object versus the body-as-process: Gender differences and gender considerations. Sex Roles, 33, 417–437. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/BF01954577 Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997. tb00108.x Galioto, R., & Crowther, J. H. (2013). The effects of exposure to slender and muscular images on male body dissatisfaction. Body Image, 10, 566–573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.07.009 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00332909.134.3.460 Griffiths, S., & Stefanovski, A. (2019). Thinspiration and fitspiration in everyday life: An experience sampling study. Body Image, 30, 135–144. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.bodyim.2019.07.002 Halliwell, E., & Dittmar, H. (2004). Does size matter? The impact of model’s body size on women’s body-focused anxiety and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 104–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.1. 104.26989 Heinberg, L. J., & Thompson, J. K. (1995). Body image and televised images of thinness and attractiveness: A controlled laboratory investigation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 14, 325–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp. 1995.14.4.325 Holland, G., & Tiggemann, M. (2016). A systematic review of the impact of the use of social networking sites on body image and disordered eating outcomes. Body Image, 17, 100–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.02.008 Homan, K. J. (2016). Factor structure and psychometric properties of a state version of the Body Appreciation Scale-2. Body Image, 19, 204–207. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.10.004 Homan, K., McHugh, E., Wells, D., Watson, C., & King, C. (2012). The effect of viewing ultra-fit images on college women’s body dissatisfaction. Body Image, 9, 50–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2011.07.006 Lenart, E. B., Goldberg, J. P., Bailey, S. M., Dallal, G. E., & Koff, E. (1995). Current and ideal physique choices in exercising and non-exercising college women from a pilot Athletic Image Scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 81, 831–848. http://dx. doi.org/10.2466/pms.1995.81.3.831 Levine, M. P., & Murnen, S. K. (2009). “Everybody knows that mass media are/are not [pick one] a cause of eating disorders”: A critical review of evidence for a causal link between media, negative body image, and disordered eating in females. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28, 9–42. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1521/jscp.2009.28.1.9 López-Guimerà, G., Levine, M. P., Sánchez-carracedo, D., & Fauquet, J. (2010). Influence of mass media on body image and eating disordered attitudes and behaviors in females: A review of effects and processes. Media Psychology, 13, 387–416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2010.525737 Mask, L., Blanchard, C. M., & Baker, A. (2014). Do portrayals of women in action convey another ideal that women with little self-determination feel obligated to live up to? Viewing effects on body image evaluations and eating behaviors. Appetite, 83, 277–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.08.025 Moreno-Domínguez, S., Servián-Franco, F., del Paso, G. A. R., & Cepeda-Benito, A. (2019). Images of thin and plus-size models produce opposite effects on women’s body image, body dissatisfaction, and anxiety. Sex Roles, 80, 607–616. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0951-3 Mulgrew, K. E., & Hennes, S. M. (2015). The effect of functionality-and aesthetic-focused images on Australian women’s body satisfaction. Sex Roles, 72, 127–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0440-2 Mulgrew, K. E., McCulloch, K., Farren, E., Prichard, I., & Lim, M. S. (2018). This girl can #jointhemovement: Effectiveness of physical functionality-focused campaigns for women’s body satisfaction and exercise intent. Body Image, 24, 26–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.11.007 Mulgrew, K. E., Stalley, N. L., & Tiggemann, M. (2017). Positive appearance and functionality reflections can improve body satisfaction but do not protect
K.E. Mulgrew et al. / Body Image 32 (2020) 128–135 against idealised media exposure. Body Image, 23, 126–134. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.09.002 Mulgrew, K. E., & Tiggemann, M. (2018). Form or function: Does focusing on body functionality protect women from body dissatisfaction when viewing media images? Journal of Health Psychology, 23, 84–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1359105316655471 Myers, T. A., & Crowther, J. H. (2009). Social comparison as a predictor of body dissatisfaction: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 118, 683–698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016763 Prichard, I., McLachlan, A. C., Lavis, T., & Tiggemann, M. (2018). The impact of different forms of# fitspiration imagery on body image, mood, and self-objectification among young women. Sex Roles, 78, 789–798. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s11199-017-0830-3 Slater, A., Varsani, N., & Diedrichs, P. C. (2017). #fitspo or #loveyourself? The impact of fitspiration and self-compassion Instagram images on women’s body image, self-compassion, and mood. Body Image, 22, 87–96. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.06.004 Swami, V., Barron, D., & Furnham, A. (2018). Exposure to natural environments, and photographs of natural environments, promotes more positive body image. Body Image, 24, 82–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.12.006 Thompson, J. K., van den Berg, P., Roehrig, M., Guarda, A. S., & Heinberg, L. J. (2004). The Sociocultural Attitude Towards Appearance Scale - 3 (SATAQ-3): Development and validation. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 35, 293–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.10257 Tiggemann, M. (2011). Sociocultural perspectives on human appearance and body image. In T. F. Cash & L. Smolak (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of science, practice, and prevention (pp. 12–19). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
135
Tiggemann, M., Hayden, S., Brown, Z., & Veldhuis, J. (2018). The effect of Instagram “likes” on women’s social comparison and body dissatisfaction. Body Image, 26, 90–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.07.002 Tiggemann, M., & McGill, B. (2004). The role of social comparison in the effect of magazine advertisements on women’s mood and body dissatisfaction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 23–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.1. 23.26991 Tiggemann, M., & Polivy, J. (2010). Upward and downward: Social comparison processing of thin idealized media images. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 356–364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01581.x Tiggemann, M., & Zaccardo, M. (2015). “Exercise to be fit, not skinny”: The effect of fitspiration imagery on women’s body image. Body Image, 15, 61–67. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.06.003 Tiggemann, M., & Zaccardo, M. (2018). ‘Strong is the new skinny’: A content analysis of #fitspiration images on Instagram. Journal of Health Psychology, 23, 1003–1011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359105316639436 Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. L. (2015). The Body Appreciation Scale-2: Item refinement and psychometric evaluation. Body Image, 12, 53–67. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.09.006 Uhlmann, L. R., Donovan, C. L., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Bell, H. S., & Ramme, R. A. (2018). The fit beauty ideal: A healthy alternative to thinness or a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Body Image, 25, 23–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim. 2018.01.005 Williamson, G., & Karazsia, B. T. (2018). The effect of functionality-focused and appearance-focused images of models of mixed body sizes on women’s state-oriented body appreciation. Body Image, 24, 95–101. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.bodyim.2017.12.008