Threat of the thin-ideal body image and body malleability beliefs: Effects on body image self-discrepancies and behavioral intentions

Body Image 9 (2012) 334–341

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Body Image journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bodyimage

Threat of the thin-ideal body image and body malleability beliefs: Effects on body image self-discrepancies and behavioral intentions Thomas Arciszewski a,∗ , Sophie Berjot b , Lucie Finez b a b

Centre PsyClé, Aix-Marseille University, Aix-en-Provence, France Laboratoire de Psychologie Appliquée (LPA) - EA 4298, Université de Reims Champagne Ardenne, Reims, France

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 23 March 2011 Received in revised form 13 April 2012 Accepted 20 April 2012 Keywords: Body malleability Self-discrepancy Thin ideal Body image Threat

This study examined the effect of the threat aroused by the perception of thin-ideal images combined with beliefs about the malleability of the body on perceived/objective, ideal/objective and ought/objective body image self-discrepancies. An experimental computer program enabled women (N = 82) to artificially increase or decrease the shape of their own body (previously photographed) in response to questions about their “actual”, “ideal” and “ought” body self-perceptions. As predicted, results showed that women had greater body self-discrepancies when confronted with threatening thin ideals, regardless of their body mass index. The size of this trend depended on the way they were made to think of their body (malleable vs. fixed). Findings also suggested a possible relationship between body self-representations and eating behaviors or intentions. The impact of thin-ideal threats and body malleability beliefs on body perception is discussed. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction The effects of exposure to skinny top models in the mass media on eating disorders and body image are now well documented (for reviews, see Lopez-Guimera, Levine, Sanchez-Carracedo, & Fauquet, 2010). Several cross-sectional studies have shown, for example, that reading fashion and glamour magazines has a negative impact on young women’s healthy weight control behaviors (Utter, Neumark-Sztainer, Wall, & Story, 2003) and, more generally, on body satisfaction, the drive for thinness and the internalization of the thin ideal (Levine & Murnen, 2009). On a broader level, reading these kinds of magazines contributes to the construction of an ideal image of the male and female bodies (Bessenoff & Snow, 2006; Yamamiya, Cash, Melnyk, Posavac, & Posavac, 2005). However, several meta-analyses (Cafri, Yamamiya, Brannick, & Thompson, 2005; Lopez-Guimera et al., 2010) have indicated that these effects are often actually quite modest, and suggested that several mediators and moderators, such as self-esteem and body and weight concerns, may intervene (for example, Jones & Buckingham, 2005; Mendelson, Mendelson, & Andrews, 2000a, 2000b). Moreover, the effect of “thin-ideal media images” on self-perception tends to

∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T. Arciszewski), [email protected] (S. Berjot), luciefi[email protected] (L. Finez). 1740-1445/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2012.04.007

differ according to the way in which these mediators and moderators are operationalized (Keeton, Cash, & Brown, 1990; Monteath & McCabe, 1997). Asking participants to fill out a questionnaire about their weight and how much they would like to/ought to weigh tends to result in an overestimation of body weight (McCaulay, Mintz, & Glenn, 1988), whereas using visual perceptions leads to an underestimation of body weight (Gardner & Tockerman, 1993; Monteath & McCabe, 1997). As we look at ourselves in the mirror far more often than we report our weight (actual, ideal or ought), and as the image we see in the mirror in the morning is more likely to have an impact on our wellbeing and our eating behavior, it is important to include visual measures in self-perception and self-guide experiments. The aim of this study was to examine one potential factor that may interact with the effects of exposure to “thin-ideal media images” on self-perceptions, self-guides and eating behavior, namely beliefs related to body malleability (Burnette, 2010; Dweck & Leggett, 2000). Moreover, drawing on the literature on self-discrepancy, as defined by Higgins and collaborators (Higgins, 1987, 1989), and in the light of the inconsistencies that have been observed, we opted for a measure based on visual perception of the body, similar to those obtained with existing apparatus and software (for example, Shibata, 2002), but using a newly developed realistic image distortion algorithm. Based on the above, we explored how threats induced by thin models and beliefs about the malleability of their body affect the way women perceive themselves. In addition, we examined the

T. Arciszewski et al. / Body Image 9 (2012) 334–341

effect of these variables on body self-discrepancies and behavioral intentions. Self-Discrepancies and Self-Guides According to Higgins (1987), our behavior is guided by three different domains of the self: the “actual self (what we think we are), the “ideal” self (what we want to be) and the “ought” self (what we think we ought to be with regards to social norms). The actual self represents our core self-concept. It describes the person we think we are, with all its attributes and traits. The ideal and ought selves are self-guides, in that they drive us to seek new self-states. Whereas the ideal self represents what we would ideally like to be and contains the traits and characteristics of that ideal person, the ought self represents the kind of person we think we need to become if we are to comply with social norms. The ought self therefore contains traits and characteristics that are highly normative and socially constrained. Higgins’ theory (1987) suggests that people are motivated to achieve a certain match between their self-concept and their self-guides. Any perceived discrepancy between the self-concept and a self-guide leads to different negative emotional and motivational states, depending on the type of discrepancy (Higgins, 1987, 1989; Higgins, Klein, Strauman, Yardley, & Honess, 1987). Actual/ideal self-discrepancies result in disappointment or dissatisfaction, while actual/ought self-discrepancies lead more to feelings of fear and threat (see Higgins, 1987 for a complete review). In relation to body perception, Strauman, Vookles, Berenstein, Chaiken, and Higgins (1991) showed that self-discrepancies, assessed with Higgins’ method (1987) are related to body dissatisfaction and disordered eating, with the actual/ideal discrepancy being related to bulimia and the actual/ought discrepancy to anorexia. High self-discrepancies are also associated with low self-esteem (Moretti & Higgins, 1990) and emotional vulnerability (Strauman et al., 1991). Following previous studies on the effects of self-discrepancies on body perception (Strauman & Glenberg, 1994; Szymanski & Cash, 1995), we believe that the different discrepancies result from different processes and in particular from specific perceptions, one of which is the thin-ideal norm, which influence ought/ideal discrepancies. Thin ideals’ impact on body image self-discrepancies. To address this issue, Harrison (2001) assessed female adolescents’ exposure to the thin ideal in the media by measuring how often they watched TV programs that had previously been rated as specifically linked to thin ideals. Results showed that this exposure was associated with an increase in self-discrepancies, negative affect and eating disorders. In addition, Bessenoff (2006) demonstrated that young women who were experimentally exposed to thin-ideal advertisements were less satisfied with their body and experienced more negative mood than women who were exposed to advertisements without any such thin-ideal images. The effect was stronger for women with high self-discrepancies. This finding suggests that body self-discrepancies may influence body satisfaction and thus result in a new set of goals being set for changing one’s body shape. The question that remains is whether such body change goals are always attainable. One may think that this is the case for people who think that their body is malleable. In this case, they may attempt to reduce body discrepancies and to modify their eating behavior in order to attain their goal. Body Malleability Beliefs Women regularly see pictures of thin models, who are often implicitly presented as a norm that they should strive to attain. In addition, these images sometimes suggest that we can shape

335

our body to match this goal, and thus may lead to an internalization of the norm and the use of behavioral strategies to comply with it. Studies using the Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Scale (SATAQ, see Heinberg & Thompson, 1995; Thompson & Heinberg, 1999) to investigate the internalization of social pressures to be thin have shown that the more women perceive pressure from the media, the less satisfied they are with their bodies (see for example, Bedford & Johnson, 2006). Body malleability beliefs can also be studied as a particular instance of the implicit theories that people hold. According to Dweck (Dweck, 1975; Dweck & Leggett, 2000), people hold different beliefs about different aspects of their self (i.e., intelligence, morality, personality, etc.). People can either hold an entity theory (i.e., think that certain aspects of their self are fixed, trait-like entities) or an incremental theory (i.e., think that some aspects of their self can be modified because they are malleable). For instance, entity theorists think that intelligence is more or less genetically determined, in that people are born with a certain amount of it and little can be done to improve it. Incremental theorists, on the other hand, think that intelligence is not genetically determined and that only work and effort can explain the amount of intelligence a person may or may not have. However, it is important to note that these implicit theories concerning the way we see ourselves are not evenly applicable to all aspects of self: we may hold an entity theory about our intelligence, but an incremental theory about our personality. According to Dweck and colleagues (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995a, 1995b; Dweck & Leggett, 2000), implicit theories about different aspects of self structure the way in which people understand and react to human actions and outcomes. In particular, Dweck et al. (1995a) showed that these theories impact on the way people explain what happens to them. For example, Zhao and Dweck (1994) found that, depending on their implicit theories, college students reacted differently to scenarios depicting major academic setbacks. Whereas entity theorists were relatively derogatory about their intelligence and abilities (e.g., “I failed because I’m not intelligent”), incremental theorists talked more about what they could do to improve themselves in the future (e.g., “I’ll try harder next time”). The results were replicated experimentally with real failure feedback and a reaction time task with ability- and nonability-related words (Hong & Dweck, 1992): after a failure, entity theorists were faster to provide ability adjectives than incremental theorists. More recently, Nussbaum and Dweck (2008) studied how entity vs. incremental theorists react to threats to their self-esteem. In their experiment, after reading a bogus article explaining that intelligence is fixed vs. malleable, participants performed a very difficult test and were told that they had failed. They were then given the opportunity either to self-protect (via a “downward” comparison) or to self-enhance (via an “upward comparison”). Results showed that after exposure to a threat to their identity, entity theorists chose to self-protect, whereas incrementalists chose to self-enhance, suggesting that implicit theories have a direct impact on how people react to threats to the self. According to Dweck and colleagues, insofar as it is part of the self, the body can also be conceived of by people as more or less malleable. This idea is consistent with Burnette’s findings (2010) that being an incremental theorist, as opposed to an entity theorist (established by means of a scale assessing individual differences in beliefs about body malleability), is associated with more successful dieting and more appropriate strategies for coping with overweight. Dejong’s study (1980), in which short texts were used to induce beliefs about individual responsibility for being overweight vs. medical reasons, also suggested that the direct perception of thin ideals may interact with body malleability beliefs to alter women’s body esteem. In his experiment, he asked participants to judge young overweight women and showed that

336

T. Arciszewski et al. / Body Image 9 (2012) 334–341

people do indeed have beliefs about body malleability and that these beliefs affect their judgments of others. Likewise, Crandall and colleagues (Crandall, 1994; Crandall, D’Anello, Sakalli, Lazarus, Wieczorkowska, & Feather, 2001; Crandall & Martinez, 1996), provided evidence that stereotyping is affected by whether or not one believes in body malleability. They demonstrated that being more “incremental” leads to more prejudiced perceptions of overweight people. Overall, beliefs of malleability, along with the internalization of the thin ideal (or social pressure to be thin), have been shown to be a key variable for understanding body perceptions and judgments of self and others. In addition to this body of research, some studies have demonstrated the importance of the causal attribution of weight for beliefs and behavior. These studies mainly assessed the impact of knowing that one’s obesity is genetic, and showed both that it releases people from self-blame and that it has no consequences on weight regulation (Conradt et al., 2009; Rief et al., 2007). Nevertheless, as far as we know, only one study has ever explored the consequences of causal attribution of weight on behavior. Wang and Coups (2010) explored beliefs about obesity within the general population and found that believing that the cause was genetic produced less healthy behaviors. The present study manipulated this variable in order to elucidate the relationship between beliefs about malleability, body perception and consequent behavior. In the light of the above research, we hypothesized that, depending on their beliefs, participants would react differently to threats to their body-esteem associated with exposure to models. In particular, when threatened with a thin ideal body, women given to believe that their body was malleable would consider this ideal to be achievable and feel less threatened than those who had been given to think that their body could not be modified. Accordingly, malleability would moderate the effects of threat on self-discrepancies, as well as behavioral intentions. It is important to note that our measures of self-discrepancies (based on photographs of the participants), assessed women’s perceptions of their body image (i.e., the way they thought they looked). As little research has assessed this aspect of self-perception, the existing literature does not provide any hypothesis regarding this variable. Nevertheless, common sense suggests that threat triggers a more realistic view of oneself and may thus induce a more accurate perception of what one really looks like, compared with a nonthreatening condition in which one can remain in some kind of illusionary state. Body malleability beliefs may enhance this effect. After all, why try to change the way one looks if one thinks that it cannot be changed? As mentioned previously, several studies have demonstrated the impact of the way people judge their body (i.e., body selfesteem) on the way their perceive them (Franzoi & Herzog, 1986; Mendelson & White, 1982; Monteath & McCabe, 1997). We therefore hypothesized that high body-esteem would lessen the consequences of our two main independent variables (i.e., body mass index – BMI, and body malleability beliefs) on body selfdiscrepancies. Finally, we assumed that the BMI would be a moderator for the above hypothesis, with high-BMI women differing from lowBMI women in their body self-discrepancies and thus in their willingness to go on diets. People with high BMI are generally more willing to go on diets and generally have greater body selfdiscrepancies. Therefore, believing the body is malleable (Body Malleability condition) and having a high BMI should increase willingness to diet. This study thus encompassed variables that are not usually tested simultaneously within a single study, enabling us to probe interactions and the psychological consequences of women’s beliefs about their body, including the malleability beliefs

introduced here as an independent variable to explore their impact not just on willingness to diet, but also on body self-perceptions. To summarize, we defined three main hypotheses within this experimental framework: women would display more body selfdiscrepancies when confronted with a body-image threat, the extent of this effect would depend on the beliefs they had about body malleability, and body-image threat and malleability would both affect the desire to diet. Method Participants and Procedure Eighty-two young female psychology students in their first or second year at the University of Reims, aged 18–26 years (M = 20.85, SD = 1.88) and with a BMI of 15.62–33.46 (M = 21.53, SD = 3.83), were recruited by a female experimenter to voluntarily participate in a study on fashion marketing and body perception. Each participant sat in a separate booth and the experiment was run by two female graduate students. Experimenters were asked to dress in jeans and a shirt, in order to look as neutral as possible. The study was introduced as a study about body perception. The experiment’s within-participants design meant that the participants were not aware of the different manipulated variables. A short debriefing questionnaire checked that none of the participants had nonetheless identified those variables. On arrival, participants were asked to give their age, weight and height, and to answer a body self-esteem questionnaire. The experimenter then told them that they would be taking part in two studies, one on marketing and women’s fashion, the other on health. In the first phase, the experimenter gave them a booklet containing a copy of a bogus scientific article (copied from a popular science magazine), followed by several fashion pictures. To justify the presentation of these images, participants were told that they were participating in a marketing study of how women perceive those types of pictures and how they influence the fashion products women buy. Their task was to read the article through carefully and look at the photos. The article was designed to manipulate beliefs about body malleability (malleable vs. fixed), whereas the fashion images were intended to manipulate the threat to self-image (high vs. low). This created four conditions, to which participants were randomly assigned. Once participants had read the contents of the booklet, the experimenter asked them to complete a short questionnaire (aimed at keeping the cover story credible) that contained questions such as “Do you find these pictures glamorous?” This questionnaire was not used as a measure. The experimenter (an undergraduate woman) then informed the participants that the first study on fashion marketing was over and invited them to participate in the body-health study. For this second study, the women were asked to stand against a blank white wall so that the experimenter could take a picture of them.1 They were then invited to sit in an individual booth, in front of a computer in which their picture had been uploaded, and to follow instructions in the form of computer prompts (assessment of body self-discrepancies). Once the participants had completed this task, the experimenter returned and

1 Pictures of participants were all taken with the same digital camera in the same conditions: participants were asked to stand with their back against a white wall (about 0.10 m away from it), and the camera was fixed on a tripod to ensure that it remained at the same distance (5 m) from the participant and at the same height (about 1.50 m) each time. After uploading a participant’s full frontal view in a computer, the experimenter had to pinpoint the position of the participant’s shoulders by moving a horizontal line up or down the picture, and then validate, so that the software would have a baseline to compute the morphing.

T. Arciszewski et al. / Body Image 9 (2012) 334–341

asked them to complete a final questionnaire that included questions about their dieting behavior (i.e., if they were currently on a diet, had recently been on one, would be on one soon, and how often they went on diets). Participants were then thanked and debriefed. Manipulation of Independent Variables Malleability of body image. The bogus scientific article, supposedly taken from a well-known French medical journal entitled Quotidien du Médecin, was pre-tested to make sure the participants would understand the content properly. The pre-test consisted of four versions of the bogus article, two for non malleability beliefs and two for malleability beliefs. Participants in this pre-test read one of these versions and rated their own ability to change their body by dieting in three questions. For the purposes of the test, we retained the two versions that yielded the lowest and highest body change ability ratings. Participants in the Malleable condition were told the following: Body appearance is not genetically predetermined: our body can be changed. Weekly sports activities and an appropriate diet are the keys to reaching the desired thinness of our body. There are many things one can do before resorting to plastic surgery. Recent studies published in the International Journal of Medicine report very satisfying results with an appropriate diet and exercise. Whereas in the Fixed condition, they were told: Body morphology and weight are, for the most part, genetically determined, and therefore cannot be changed. According to recent studies published in the International Journal of Medicine, results obtained with an appropriate diet and sports activities are not very satisfactory. Threat to body image. Media image threat was manipulated as in Jarry and Kossert’s study (2007). Participants in the high bodyimage threat condition were given advertisements picturing thin models taken from well-known women’s magazines (ELLE and Version Femina). Participants in the low body-image threat condition were presented with advertisements picturing fashion accessories and cosmetics. We selected the pictures of models by pre-testing a set of 50 pictures of women, mostly models. We asked participants (not involved in the present study) to rate two statements about each picture on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from “not really” to “very much”: “This woman is attractive and glamorous” and “Do you think you could be jealous of this woman’s body?”. We retained the 12 pictures which had the highest evaluation scores and the 12 pictures with the lowest. Measures Body mass index. BMI was calculated with the following formula: BMI = weight (kg)/(height (m)2 ). Following the World Health Organization’s criterion (see www.who.int/bmi/), participants were categorized as underweight if their BMI was below 18.5 (n = 14, M = 17.56, SD = 0.79), normal weight if their BMI was between 18.5 and 25 (n = 57, M = 20.96, SD = 1.65) and overweight if their BMI was equal to or above 25 (n = 11, M = 29.49, SD = 3.04). Body self-esteem. Body self-esteem was assessed on the Physical Abilities subscale of the French version of Fleming and Courtney (1984)’s Feeling of Inadequacy Scale (FIS), an adaptation of Janis and Field’s Scale (˛ = .88) (Berjot, Gregg, & Richards, 2004; Fleming & Courtney, 1984; Janis, Field, & Hovland, 1959). This scale

337

requires respondents to rate 12 items on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Body self-discrepancies. The experimenter installed the participants at computer desks that were separated from each other by partitions so that no one could see her neighbor. Participants sat in front of the computer in which their picture had been uploaded. We used a computer program that had been specially designed for this study, based on a specific algorithm. Although this program was new and differed slightly from existing ones, its purpose was very similar to that of the video apparatus currently used in such research. The program was started by the experimenter, who pinpointed the neckline by clicking and validating with the computer mouse. This procedure was invented to ensure greater realism. We did not morph the head, as this requires a very complicated algorithm which has to be changed each time, and in any case the head remains relatively stable, only undergoing major changes in cases of extreme weight change (gain or loss). The program’s algorithm therefore changed the body shape below that line, according to two main computing rules, one for the trunk and one for the arms and legs (the arms and legs had a lower maximum distortion than the trunk). Participants were asked by computer prompts to change the shape of their body image on the screen (using the “+” or “−” keys), so as to indicate, in the following order, their actual body (“Adjust your picture to the shape you think you actually have”), ideal (“Adjust your picture to the shape you would ideally like to have”) and ought body (“Adjust your picture to the shape you feel you ought to have”, see Monteath & McCabe, 1997). These three prompts appeared in a random order generated for each participant by the software. They were displayed one at a time and participants could not go back to the previous prompt once they had responded to it. Body self-discrepancy was the percentage of deviation between the actual picture (0%) and the picture morphed by pressing the +/− keys (a deviation that could theoretically range from −100% (to indicate a thinner shape in comparison with the participant’s actual body shape) to +100% (to indicate a larger shape in comparison with the participant’s actual body shape)). Our software was designed so that the enlarging/shrinking of the body shape was proportional to the real body and not just a horizontal deformation. As far as we know, no such algorithm has ever been used in previous research involving body distortion computation (Gardner & Boice, 2004), as the latter tends to rely on simple morphing systems that yield less realistic results (Fier, Hagman, Gralla, & Gardner, 2010; Shibata, 2002). From our point of view, realistic distortion is an important factor in body image software, so as to be as close as possible to genuine weight gain or loss and not simply change the body’s general shape. Deformations were credible in the sense that they mimicked how the person would be if she became heavier or lighter. In addition, this natural-looking body deformation enabled us to make extremely accurate assessments. This method also presented the advantage of allowing participants to carry out the body distortion themselves, in a relatively ecological manner with no unusual apparatus (we just used pictures displayed on a computer, a fairly usual situation), directly after the picture had been taken and without any assistance from the experimenter, which might have affected the participants’ decision making. None of this would have been possible using the methodology employed in previous studies. Diet intentions. Three questions were used to assess participants’ dieting habits or intentions: are you currently on a diet (answer yes or no)? Do you intend to go on diet? Do you think you will be on a diet next month? Answers to the last two

338

T. Arciszewski et al. / Body Image 9 (2012) 334–341

Table 1 Difference between the actual picture and participant’s perception of their body self discrepancies as a function of the body malleability belief and body image threat (in %). Variables No threat Not malleable Malleable Threat Not malleable Malleable

Real M (SD)

Ideal M (SD)

Ought to have M (SD)

−4.10(7.10) −11.28(16.37)

−9.65(16.33) −14.76(14.35)

−15.50(19.91) −18.52(22.44)

−3.25(8.40) −1.00(5.06)

−21.05(20.41) −12.00(12.20)

−22.2(24.73) −11.90(15.57)

questions were given as ratings on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “not at all” to “certainly”. Results Preliminary Results Seventy-two participants (87.8%) reported that they were currently on a diet. The percentage of participants who were on a diet did not differ significantly across the three BMI groups, although there were proportionately slightly more participants on a diet in the underweight groups (n = 14, all are on diet) than in the normal weight (n = 57, 48 are on diet) and overweight group (n = 11, 8 are on diet) (2 (2, N = 82) = 3.86, p = .15). We first ran linear regressions to observe whether BMI was linked to body image self-discrepancies (BSD). We expected that women with high BMI would have greater BSD. As predicted, higher BMI was associated with greater BSD (ANOVA for the model, F(1, 80) = 61.96, p < .0001; for ideal BSD, F(1, 80) = 67.99, p < .001; for ought BSD; and F(1, 80) = 8.59, p < .005 for actual BSD). We also checked whether BMI was a possible moderator for our independent variables (i.e., if BMI changed the relationship between our two main predictors, threat and malleability, and BSD). We ran a generalized linear model (GLM; see Lindsey, 2000) including threat, malleability and BMI (formula: BSD ∼ malleability × threat + BMI). Results failed to reveal a moderating effect of BMI. We therefore excluded BMI from further analyses (except for one described below).

Fig. 1. Effect of body image threat (BIT) on the three body self-discrepancies (BSD).

with low-threat images than when they had been exposed to highthreat images (M = −11.28, SD = 16.37 vs. M = −0.8, SD = 5.06). These findings suggest that women who were led to believe that their body was malleable had a more accurate perception of themselves when they were under threat than when they were not. Conversely, women assigned to the fixed condition did not differ in the way they viewed themselves after seeing high- vs. low-threat images (M = −4.1, SD = 7.1 for the low threat condition vs. M = −3.25, SD = 8.4 for the high threat condition, see Fig. 1). Ideal BSDs. As with the actual BSDs, our analysis revealed a significant interaction between malleability and threat, F(1, 78) = 3.98, p < .05. Women who had been led to believe that their body was malleable did not seem to be affected by the threat induced by the thin-ideal images, whereas women who had been led to believe that their body could not be changed tended to want themselves to be thinner when faced with high-threat images (M = −21.05, SD = 20.40) than when exposed to low-threat images (M = −9.65, SD = 16.33). Ought BSDs. No effects of our independent variables were found on ought BSDs. It should, however, be noted that the percentages for the ought to variable were very low, ranging from −17.04% to −16.7% in comparison with the original photo (see Table 1).

Body Image Self-Discrepancies (BSD) Moderating Role of Body Self-Esteem To test our main hypothesis on the influence of our IV on BSD, we ran a series of 2 (threat: high vs. low) × 2 (malleability beliefs: malleable vs. fixed) ANOVAs on each of our dependent BSD variables (i.e., actual body, ideal body, ought to body).2 Actual BSDs. Results revealed that women perceived themselves (actual body) as thinner than they actually were in all experimental conditions (M = −4.94, SD = 10.7; see Table 1 for details according to conditions). In addition, the discrepancy between participants’ perceptions of their body shape and their objective body shape (actual/objective body discrepancy) was significantly greater in the low threat condition (M = −7.78, SD = 13.08) than in the high threat condition (M = −2.09, SD = 6.88; F(1, 80) = 6.06, p < .02). Second, results revealed a malleability beliefs × threat interaction for actual body, F(1, 78) = 4.36, p < .04: women in the malleable condition viewed themselves as thinner when they had been faced

2

It should be noted that our dependent variables were expressed in percentages and represented the difference between the objective photo (0%) and the three “deformed” images (actual/ideal/ought).

As mentioned earlier, we postulated that high body selfesteem would moderate the effects of both threat and malleability beliefs. To test this hypothesis, we split the group at the median (Mdn = 3.75) so as to create a group of low body esteem and a group of high body esteem, tested separately. Body esteem tended to moderate actual BSD, F(1, 74) = 3.37, p = .057, but neither ideal BSD, F(1, 74) = .99, ns, nor ought BSD, F(1, 74) = 1.98, ns. More specifically, as shown in Fig. 2, malleability beliefs seemed to have no effect on actual BSD on high body esteem participants, whereas the interaction was still significant for the low body esteem group. In other words, only low body esteem women who had been given to believe that their body was malleable were sensitive to threats to their body: they tended to perceive their body more accurately when they were under threat than when they were not. Dieting Intentions As mentioned earlier, most of the participants declared that they were currently on a diet (72 out of 82). Simple relations between BMI and diet intentions were not significant (see Table 2), which means that BMI did not in itself account for the participants’

T. Arciszewski et al. / Body Image 9 (2012) 334–341

339

Fig. 2. Interaction of body image threat (BIT) and body malleability belief (BMB) for low and high body self-esteem participants on actual BSD.

willingness to diet. We did, however, find linear effects of BMI on the intention to go on a diet (linear regression for intention to go on a diet in general, b = .15, SD = .34, ˇ = .43 p < .0001), and to go on a diet one month later (b = .12, SD = .04, ˇ = .34, p < .003). In other words, the more the young women weighed, the more they wanted to go on diet. As for the effects of our variables, the Wilcoxon rank sum test failed to reveal any difference between the two threat conditions on willingness to diet (as assessed by the question “Do you intend to go on a diet?”). Malleability had strong trend effects on the desire to go on a diet the following month, showing that believing we can change our bodies leads to a greater intention (Wilcoxon test, T = 621.5, p = .05) to go on a diet (M = 3.02, SD = 1.42) than not believing (Mno malleability = 2.43, SD = 1.61 vs. Mmalleability = 3.02, SD = 1.42). Finally, we looked at whether actual BSDs could predict dieting behaviors. Both ideal BSDs and ought BSDs accounted for the will to go on a diet, moderated by BMI. For both these types of BSD, overweight participants (high BMI) tended to declare a willingness to diet when they perceived high and low BSDs, whereas underweight participants (i.e., low BMI) were more willing to go on a diet solely when they perceived high BSDs (ANOVAs for the GLMs, The question: “Do you intend to go on a diet?” explained by: ideal BSD × BMI, F(1, 78) = 18.07, p < .0001, and by ought BSD × BMI, F(1, 78) = 12.54, p < .0001). Discussion In line with previous studies (Grabe, Ward, & Hyde, 2008; Harper & Tiggemann, 2008; Lopez-Guimera et al., 2010; Rodgers & Chabrol, 2009), we hypothesized that the thin-ideal body images shown in the media represent a potential norm for women, and thus also a potential threat for those women who do not match this norm – a threat that could have an impact on the way they perceive their body but also on the way they would like it to be or the way they Table 2 Diet intentions according to body mass index (means).

Do you intend to go on diet?* Do you intend to go on diet next month?** Do you usually diet?***

Underweight

Normal weight

Overweight

1.21

2.94

4.18

1.22

2.91

3.72

1.14

1.95

2.27

Note: The higher the score is, the greater the agreement to the question. * F(2, 79) = 15.66, p = .0001. ** F(2, 79) = 12.08, p = .0001. *** F(2, 79) = 7.70, p = .001.

think it ought be. We hypothesized that body malleability beliefs would reduce the impact of this threat on the perceptions women have of their bodies. The aim of this experiment was to study the effects of body image threats and body malleability beliefs on body selfdiscrepancies. The new methodology used in this study presented the advantage of allowing a visual measure of perception to be used, instead of a more cognitive one. This measure therefore allowed us to assess body perception in a more ecological setting. This measure relied on a dynamic computerized system featuring a morphing algorithm which did not alter the overall proportions of the body when expanding or shrinking it – something which cannot be done with a more classic optical device. This marks the first step towards developing a useful tool for assessing various aspects of body perception. Results suggest that women do not accurately perceive the shape of their body. In all the experimental conditions, the young women in our sample perceived themselves as being thinner than they actually were. This result raises some questions. Women generally believe that they are larger than they actually are. Results showed that woman facing their own picture perceived nevertheless themselves thinner than they actually look like. Women evaluate differently their body image on a picture of themselves or if they’re just asked about. Explanation for this discrepancy could be either that the thinner evaluation of their picture is an expression of their wish for change, or that they think that pictures actually represent a distorted reality and therefore “correct” this distortion. Another step would be then to understand what is the actual effect of switching from a perception of our body in the mirror with a three dimensional perspective to a two dimensional picture on a screen (the “distorted reality”). No result in this study gives clue for understanding this particular aspect of self-perception and the link between the perception of the real body and the perception of a representation of the body. Nevertheless this point raises interesting questions that need further inquiries. Another important result is that their perception of the shape of their body (actual) was influenced by body image threats and beliefs about their body’s malleability. Participants perceived themselves more accurately when they were under threat than when they were not. However, this effect was only found for women who had been led to believe that their body was malleable. The main goal of the present experiment was to study the effects of exposure to body-thin models and beliefs about body malleability (malleable vs. fixed) on body self-discrepancies. Results revealed that these threats and beliefs had an effect on ideal selfdiscrepancies (i.e., discrepancies between the way women perceive themselves and the way they would ideally like to be) but had no

340

T. Arciszewski et al. / Body Image 9 (2012) 334–341

effect on ought self-discrepancies (i.e., discrepancies between the way women perceive themselves and the way they think the social norms want them to be). This result adds to the literature of ought and ideal self-guides for the body (Szymanski & Cash, 1995) in two ways: ideal and ought to guides have different effects on body perception, and the ideal guide seems, as Szymanski and Cash state, “more relevant to self-evaluation” (p. 143) than the ought guide. It should be recalled that women’s ought self-discrepancies refer not to how they think they are or how they want to be, but rather to how they imagine they should be for the society in which they live. As this judgment is built on a social thin-ideal norm, it may not be influenced by other factors (body threats and beliefs about malleability). Moreover, when the young women were led to believe they could change their body, they reacted to the threat aroused by the thin-ideal images by being more accurate in their perceptions of their body shape (i.e., less actual/objective discrepancy). In the malleable condition, they seemed able to see themselves more as they were, possibly because the ideal seemed achievable to them. Two other possible explanations are that malleability beliefs bring about an increase in general perceptions of self-efficacy or activate self-affirmation processes that mobilize psychological resources for change. When they were threatened and led to believe that they could not change their body image, the women’s ideal BSDs increased still further (i.e., they wanted to be far thinner than they really were). Conversely, women who were led to believe that their body was malleable (often presented that way in fashion magazines, which often also provide diet counseling), did not seem to be affected by the threat induced by the photos of fashion models. As a result, the negative effects of fashion magazines on body image observed in previous studies (see for example, Grabe et al., 2008) may well apply chiefly to women who have doubts about their body malleability. This may be the case for women who have already tried several dieting techniques without success. By so doing, they may have reinforced their beliefs about the body’s nonmalleability and, in turn, increased their vulnerability to thin models. Conversely, believing that the body is malleable equates to having control over the state of one’s own body. Some studies, for example, have demonstrated a positive relationship between women’s locus of control and their body satisfaction (see for example, Mable, Balance, & Galgan, 1986). Body malleability beliefs could therefore be regarded as a specific locus of control, empowering either the person (internal control) or her genetic background (external control). Moreover, the beliefs we have about our ability to change our body could be either a consequence of our body image or a cause of it. Therefore body malleability beliefs may have several consequences on eating behaviors and, presumably, interact with other variables that influence body image. We believe that these hypotheses open the way for further research on how young girls regulate their eating behavior. The present study had several limitations that will need to be remedied in future studies. First, our sample size, albeit statistically relevant, was small, and did not include enough low- and high-BMI participants. A second limitation concerns the software. For the time being, it constitutes a useful tool for transforming body shapes in real time, but it still needs to be more accurate in terms of the body parts that are especially prone to weight changes and those that are not, and also to be extended to men, using different algorithm. Another point to take into account in future studies is the way that willingness to diet is assessed. Some doubts remain as to the participants’ real motivation to diet or their dieting past, even if our study yielded some promising results. Finally, although we did not investigate men in the present study, several studies have shown that they, too, are threatened by models, though of muscle rather than thinness (Cohane &

Pope, 2001; McCabe & Ricciardelli, 2005; Ricciardelli & McCabe, 2001). To conclude, while our results seem generally consistent with the literature, they are nevertheless new for three main reasons. First of all, the measure we used was based on visual, rather than cognitive perception. Second, our results highlight the effect of beliefs about the malleability of one’s body on body image perception and confirm the benefit of malleability beliefs already observed for other aspects of self (e.g., intelligence). This particular belief is directly linked to the causal attribution of obesity or underweight, that is, it can be an answer to the “Why don’t I meet weight standards” question. Exploring this issue from a health communication and information point of view could prove a fruitful field of research (Hilbert et al., 2009; Wang & Coups, 2010). Moreover, the belief that the body is not malleable (i.e., is genetically driven) has consequences on self-blame (Conradt et al., 2009) and thus on the dieting process. The interaction between malleability and body image threat demonstrated in the present study sheds new light on the psychosocial dynamics of building one’s body representation and supports the notion that any information about health should be study within the social framework. Third and last, the present findings yield some interesting clues to add the existing literature on how best to help women with their weight concerns, even if the BMI range of our participants could be seen as a limitation. Future research will mainly concern an improvement in the software, allowing more subtle changes to the body shape based on an algorithm that takes all the body parts into account, more specifically markers of the female body such as the breasts and hips, but also the face. A more powerful algorithm, like some existing systems (Shizhe, Hongbo, Ligang, Daniel, & Xiaoguang, 2010), but dedicated to specific psychological questions, would enrich our knowledge of the links between body image, body shape, body perception, sexual identifiers and the internalization of normative body measures (size, weight, etc.). It would also be interesting to compare measurements of dimensions related to the body and other dimensions of the self, focusing on the comparison of body self-discrepancies with general self-discrepancies and, more generally, with eating behaviors. Future questions will focus on trade-offs between self and body perception as possible indicators of current and future eating behaviors. References Bedford, J. L., & Johnson, C. S. (2006). Societal influences on body image dissatisfaction in younger and older women. Journal of Women & Aging, 18, 41–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J074v18n01 04 Berjot, S., Gregg, A., & Richards, L. (2004). Validation franc¸aise de la version révisée de l’échelle de Sentiment d’Inadéquation (Feeling of Inadequacy Scale) Fleming & Courtney, 1984. Paper presented at the 5ème Colloque International de Psychologie Sociale en Langue Franc¸aise de l’ADRIPS, Lausanne, Suisse. Bessenoff, G. R. (2006). Can the media affect us? Social comparison, selfdiscrepancy, and the thin ideal. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 239–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1471-6402.2006.00292.x Bessenoff, G. R., & Snow, D. (2006). Absorbing society’s influence: Body image self-discrepancy and internalized shame. Sex Roles, 54, 727–731. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298860701800225 Burnette, J. L. (2010). Implicit theories of body weight: Entity beliefs can weigh you down. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 410–422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167209359768 Cafri, G., Yamamiya, Y., Brannick, M., & Thompson, J. K. (2005). The influence of sociocultural factors on body image: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 12, 421–433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/clipsy/bpi053 Cohane, G. H., & Pope, H. G., Jr. (2001). Body image in boys: A review of the literature. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 29, 373–379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.1033 Conradt, M., Dierk, J.-M., Schlumberger, P., Albohn, C., Rauh, E., Hinney, A., et al. (2009). A consultation with genetic information about obesity decreases self-blame about eating and leads to realistic weight loss goals in obese individuals. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 66, 287–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2008.09.003 Crandall, C. S. (1994). Prejudice against fat people: Ideology and selfinterest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 882–894. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.882

T. Arciszewski et al. / Body Image 9 (2012) 334–341 Crandall, C. S., D’Anello, S., Sakalli, N., Lazarus, E., Wieczorkowska, G., & Feather, N. T. (2001). An attribution-value model of prejudice: Anti-fat attitudes in six nations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 30–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167201271003 Crandall, C. S., & Martinez, R. (1996). Culture, ideology, and antifat attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1165–1176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01461672962211007 DeJong, W. (1980). The stigma of obesity: The consequences of naive assumptions concerning the causes of physical deviance. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 75–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2136696 Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 674–685. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0077149 Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C.-Y., & Hong, Y.-Y. (1995a). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604 1 Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C.-Y., & Hong, Y.-Y. (1995b). Implicit theories: Elaboration and extension of the model. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 322–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604 12 Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (2000). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Motivational science: Social and personality perspectives (pp. 394–415). New York, NY, US: Psychology Press. Fier, J., Hagman, J., Gralla, J., & Gardner, R. (2010). Abstract NR1-31: Software program accurately assesses body image in patients with anorexia nervosa. Paper presented at the American psychiatric association 2010 annual meeting, May 22–26, New Orleans. Fleming, J. S., & Courtney, B. E. (1984). The dimensionality of self-esteem: II. Hierarchical facet model for revised measurement scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 404–421. Franzoi, S. L., & Herzog, M. E. (1986). The Body Esteem Scale: A convergent and discriminant validity study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 24. Gardner, R. M., & Boice, R. (2004). A computer program for measuring body size distortion and body dissatisfaction. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers, 36, 89–95. Gardner, R. M., & Tockerman, Y. R. (1993). Body dissatisfaction as a predictor of body size distortion: A multidimensional analysis of body image. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 119, 125–145. 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 Harper, B., & Tiggemann, M. (2008). The effect of thin ideal media images on women’s self-objectification, mood, and body image. Sex Roles, 58, 649–657. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9379-x Harrison, K. (2001). Ourselves, our bodies: Thin-ideal media, self-discrepancies, and eating disorder symptomatology in adolescents. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 20, 289–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.20.3.289.22303 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. Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319 Higgins, E. T. (1989). Self-discrepancy theory: What patterns of self-beliefs cause people to suffer? In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 93–136). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press Inc. Higgins, E. T., Klein, R. L., Strauman, T. J., Yardley, K., & Honess, T. (1987). Self-discrepancies: Distinguishing among self-states, self-state conflicts, and emotional vulnerabilities. In Self and identity: Psychosocial perspectives. Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons., pp. 173–186. Hilbert, A., Dierk, J.-M., Conradt, M., Schlumberger, P., Hinney, A., Hebebrand, J., et al. (2009). Causal attributions of obese men and women in genetic testing: Implications of genetic/biological attributions. Psychology & Health, 24, 749–761. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870440801947787 Hong, Y. Y., & Dweck, C. (1992, June). Implicit theories as predictors of self-inference processes. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Society, San Diego. Janis, I. L., Field, P. B., & Hovland, C. I. (1959). Sex differences and personality factors related to persuasibility. In I. L. Janis (Ed.), Personality and persuasibility (pp. 55–68). Oxford, England: Yale University Press. Jarry, J. L., & Kossert, A. L. (2007). Self-esteem threat combined with exposure to thin media images leads to body image compensatory self-enhancement. Body Image, 4, 39–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2006.12.003 Jones, A. M., & Buckingham, J. T. (2005). Self-esteem as a moderator of the effect of social comparison on women’s body image. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 24, 1164–1187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2005.24.8.1164 Keeton, W. P., Cash, T. F., & Brown, T. A. (1990). Body image or images? Comparative, multidimensional assessment among body college students. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54, 213–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5401&2 21 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

341

disordered eating in females. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28, 9–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2009.28.1.9 Lindsey, J. K. (2000). Applying generalized linear models. New York: Springer-Verlag Inc. Lopez-Guimera, G., Levine, M. P., Sanchez-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 Mable, H. M., Balance, W. D., & Galgan, R. J. (1986). Body-image distortion and dissatisfaction in university students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 907–911. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.1986.63.2.907 McCabe, M. P., & Ricciardelli, L. A. (2005). A longitudinal study of body image and strategies to lose weight and increase muscles among children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 559–577. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2005.06.007 McCaulay, M., Mintz, L., & Glenn, A. A. (1988). Body image, self-esteem, and depression-proneness: Closing the gender gap. Sex Roles, 18, 381–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00288390 Mendelson, M. J., Mendelson, B. K., & Andrews, J. (2000a). Self-esteem, body esteem, and body-mass in late adolescence: Is a competence × importance model needed? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 249–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0193-3973(99)00035-0 Mendelson, M. J., Mendelson, B. K., & Andrews, J. (2000b). Self-esteem, body esteem, and body-mass in late adolescence: Is a competence/importance model needed? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 249–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00035-0 Mendelson, B. K., & White, D. R. (1982). Relation between body-esteem and selfesteem of obese and normal children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 54, 899–905. Monteath, S. A., & McCabe, M. P. (1997). The influence of societal factors on female body image. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 708–727. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224549709595493 Moretti, M. M., & Higgins, E. T. (1990). Relating self-discrepancy to self-esteem: The contribution of discrepancy beyond actual-self ratings. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 108–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(90)90071S Nussbaum, A. D., & Dweck, C. S. (2008). Defensiveness versus remediation: Self-theories and modes of self-esteem maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 599–612. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167207312960 Ricciardelli, L. A., & McCabe, M. P. (2001). Self-esteem and negative affect as moderators of sociocultural influences on body dissatisfaction, strategies to decrease weight, and strategies to increase muscles among adolescent boys and girls. Sex Roles, 44, 189–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/a:1010955120359 Rief, W., Conradt, M., Dierk, J.-M., Rauh, E., Schlumberger, P., Hinney, A., et al. (2007). Is information on genetic determinants of obesity helpful or harmful for obese people? A randomized clinical trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22, 1553–1559. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0353-7 Rodgers, R., & Chabrol, H. (2009). L’impact de l’exposition à des images de minceur idéalisée sur l’insatisfaction corporelle chez des jeunes femmes franc¸aises et italiennes. L’Encephale, 35, 262–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.encep.2008.05.003 Shibata, S. (2002). A Macintosh and Windows program for assessing body-image disturbance using adjustable image distortion. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 34, 90–92. Shizhe, Z., Hongbo, F., Ligang, L., Daniel, C.-O., & Xiaoguang, H. (2010). Parametric reshaping of human bodies in images. ACM Transactions on Computer Graphics: Special Issue of ACM SIGGRAPH 2010, 29, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1778765.1778863 Strauman, T. J., & Glenberg, A. M. (1994). Self-concept and body-image disturbance: Which self-beliefs predict body size overestimation? Cognitive Therapy and Research,, 18(105-125) http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02357219 Strauman, T. J., Vookles, J., Berenstein, V., Chaiken, S., & Higgins, E. T. (1991). Self-discrepancies and vulnerability to body dissatisfaction and disordered eating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 946–956. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.6.946 Szymanski, M. L., & Cash, T. F. (1995). Body-image disturbances and self-discrepancy theory – Expansion of the Body-image Ideals Questionnaire. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 14, 134–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1995.14.2.134 Thompson, J. K., & Heinberg, L. J. (1999). The media’s influence on body image disturbance and eating disorders: We’ve reviled them, now can we rehabilitate them? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 339–353. Utter, J., Neumark-Sztainer, D., Wall, M., & Story, M. (2003). Reading magazine articles about dieting and associated weight control behaviors among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, 78–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1054139X(02)00455-X Wang, C., & Coups, E. (2010). Causal beliefs about obesity and associated health behaviors: Results from a population-based survey. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 7, 19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/14795868-7-19 Yamamiya, Y., Cash, T. F., Melnyk, S. E., Posavac, H. D., & Posavac, S. S. (2005). Women’s exposure to thin-and-beautiful media images: Body image effects of mediaideal internalization and impact-reduction interventions. Body Image, 2(74-80) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2004.11.001 Zhao, W., & Dweck, C. (1994). Implicit theories and vulnerability to depression-like responses. Unpublished manuscript, Columbia University.