Body image, media & ideal body Flashcards
Why body image?
- Stice 2002
- APA 2013
- Grogan 2007
- Frederick, Jafary, Daniels & Gruys 2011
- Gray & Frederick 2012
Stice 2002- risk factor & maintenance factor in clinical EDs.
APA 2013- core component diagnostic criteria for several criteria for several EDs in DSM-V.
- key feature in patients’ accounts of how their ED deved & it’s effects on their lives.
- important and very common source of psych distress.
-Grogan 2007- linked poor health behaviours, depress, unhealthy weight control practices & other neg outcomes.
- everyone has experiences of their body, esp time of year- loose few lbs after xmas.
- ppl poor body image won’t exercise as embarrassed & instead use maladaptive- low self-esteem.
- Frederick, Jafary, Daniels & Gruys, 2011- body diss is prev in F & M in industrialised settings across the world.
- Gray & Frederick, 2012- body diss prevalent in college men.
Schemas & attitudes
Schema- central Organising Constructs in interplay of cog, behavioural & emotional processes, in context of enviro events.
- -originate in childhood but consolidate in adulthood.
- -don’t need a meaning.
- -input from self, ppl, billboards etc.
Attitudes-
- i- Body Image Investment- cog-behavioural importance individuals place on their own appearance.
- ii- Body Image Evaluations- pos-to-neg appraisals of & beliefs about one’s appearance.
- -based on discrepancy/congruence b/w self-perceived characteristics & personally-valued appearance ideals.
- -large diffs + high investment= severe reactions to “fix”.
A Cognitive Behavioural Model of Body Image
(look at diagram)
-Cash 2004
Long term-
-cultural socialisation, interpersonal experiences, physical characteristics, personality attributes.
Short term “hot topics”-
-appearance schematic processing, activating events, internal dialogues, body image emotions, self-regulatory adjustive behaviours.
all= Body Image Schemas & Attitudes.
Historical & developmental factors
-Fraley & Shaver 2000
-learning cultural meaning of bodies not a passive experience: happens through=
Person-Environment Interactions & in middle of other developmental changes (cog, social emotional, physical).
Fraley & Shaver 2000- 3 key aspects human psych profound effects on body satisfaction
- 1- personality, -2- attachment style -3- self-esteem
- -organise how respond to social & enviro material.
- adolescence highest risk.
historical & developmental factors: Appearance Standards & Expectations
- communicated via cultural msgs about which physical characteristics are/aren’t socially valued, what it means have/lack these & how to alter body to attain.
- family & friends & peers spread Interpersonal Expectations of appearance via role modelling, comments, social comparisons & teasing/criticism.
historical & developmental factors: Gender Expectations
-also communicated through cultural & interpersonal experiences, including importance of appearance for Status & Mating value- huge pressures.
- know from young age, how reduce fat, of diet pills, diets, makeup etc
- as child parents most important for interpersonal experiences, when older peers most important.
historical & developmental factors: Physical Characteristic
- weight, shape, skin colour & attractiveness affect individuals Self-Evaluation against “ideal” & also way they Perceived & Treated By Others.
- physical processes (puberty, birth, illness, ageing) mean individuals must continually adapt to appearance changes.
historical & developmental factors: Personality Factors
- big 5
- -Kvalem et al 2016
- -Benford & Swami 2014
- -Davis 2001
- attachment theory
- -Cash, Theriault & Annis 2004
- -Johnson & Wardle 2005
- both causal factors & consequences of body attitudes & schemas.
- Self-esteem, perfectionism, self-consciousness, a need for social approval & gender-based attitudes & values are all closely linked to body image.
- personality is at core of these factors.
(cultural socialisation-> interpersonal experiences-> physical characteristics-> personality attributes).
- Big Five- no clear ass expect Neuroticism.
- -Kvalem et al 2016- increased N more sensitive to eval by others & feel stronger desire for social approval.
- -Benford & Swami 2014- increased N in M= increase drive for muscularity.
- -Davis 2001- women increased N poorer appearance eval, greater self-objectification & higher weight preoccupation.
Attachment Theory- 1 largest areas of psych- but little look to body diss & body image.
- -link b/w anxious attachment style & body diss.
- -Cash, Theriault & Annis 2004- M & F with more preoccupied attachment styles reported poorer body image across 3 diff measures.
- -Johnson & Wardle 2005- bidirectional relationship b/w S-E & body satisfaction.
- -increased S-E= increased body satisfaction.
Current precipitating & maintaining influences on body image experiences.
- cues
- coping strats
- reinforcement
- Situational Cues activate Schema-Driven Processing of info about & self-evals of one’s physical appearance
- this is more salient to some ppl than others.
-cues might include: self in mirror, feeling socially scrutinised, comparison to others, wearing certain clothing, weighing, exercising, mood states & appearance changes.
(appearance schematic processing, activating events, internal dialogues, body image emotions).
- this can be habitual, faulty & dysphoric, based on cognitive biases & distortions.
- to manage Distressing Body Image Thoughts & Emotions, individuals use range self-regulatory, adjust behaviours or cog strategies.
- these help them adjust/accommodate environmental events.
- include: avoidance, body concealment, appearance-correcting rituals, seeking social reassurance & compensatory strategies. (makeup, pulling hair out, sharing lots photos- say I look bad in expectation someone will say you don’t).
- BUT- end up Mutually Reinforcing existing body image probs cus allow individual temporarily escape, reduce or regulate discomfort.
- more avoid mirrors you avoid social events
- -vicious cycle of dysfunctional schema & fault coping strategies.
(internal dialogues, body image emotions, self-regulatory adjustive behaviours).
Cognitive biases & distortions in body dissatisfaction
- Cash, 1997- the body image workbook.
- 1 - 8.
- 1- Polarized (all-or-nothing) thinking. (amazing or shite).
- 2- Biased Comparisons of one’s own body with one’s own ideal, media images, & actual ppl.
- 3- Paying Selective Attention to a disliked feature of one’s appearance- out of normal range.
- -look at lots of plastic surgery.
- 4- Concluding that some aspects of one’s appearance is cause of past injustices in life.
- -lost job cus too ugly to stand in shop.
- 5- Projecting one’s neg body-image thoughts into somebody else’s presumed thoughts.
- -ppl want get away from you, can be v debilitating- can’t make pals if think everyone is judging you.
- 6- Predicting that one’s appearance will adversely affects one’s future.
- -never get married.
- 7- Concluding that one cannot do certain things cus of one’s looks.
- -can’t go swimming.
- 8- Experiencing neg mood states that generalize to feelings about one’s appearance.
- -can have these without having an ED.
Do individuals with body dissatisfaction have distorted perceptions?
- Cash & Deagle 1997
- Walman et al 2013
- McCabe et al 2006
- Stice & Shaw 2002
- Cash & Deagle 1997- individuals with AN overestimate their own body size.
- Waldman et al 2013- isn’t generalised deficit in perceiving the size of other stimuli.
- McCabe et al 2016- in ppl without EDs- BMI predicts perceptual accuracy: obese ppl underestimate their size & underweight ppl overestimate their size.
- Stice & Shaw 2002- dissatisfaction can grow & potentially become life threatening ED.
“Ideal” bodies
- Fallon & Rozin 1985
- Crossley et al 2012
- Fallon & Rozin 1985- first showed that women’s own ideal figure was thinner than the figure they believed men found attractive.
- -the opposite seen in men: personal ideal was larger than body they thought women would prefer.
- Crossley et al 2012- 40 F, 40 M- adjusted shape & size of computerised 3D figure to resemble the F ideal.
- -F wanted bigger breasts than M pref- however bodies similar.
- –BMI not far from underweight, but it wasn’t due to the huge breasts.
- -M wanted slightly heavier than F. -F ideal M larger chest.
- -both these ideals very hard to get irl.
Words for ideal in our class + some media studies
- Harrison 2000
- Want 2009
F- hair, legs, curvy, ass, breasts, hourglass.
M- tall, muscular, jawline, beard.
- Harrison 2000- exposure to media implicated major cause of body dissatisfaction.
- Want 2009- meta-analysis greater exposure appearance-focused media ass with higher lvls body diss & disordered eating attitudes/beliefs in vulnerable individuals.
Female ideals in the media
- Sypeck et al 2004; Seifert 2005
- (look at magazine covers)
- Sypeck et al 2004; Seifert 2005- cultural norms of ideal F body got thinner BMI= 18kg/m^2 over 1980/90s & remain.
- emphasis increasingly upon visible, moderate muscularity for F alongside low body fat, large breasts & big bums.
(70s- cocaine powerhouse, 80s- heroin sheek, 90s- thin, 00s- toned, 10s- surgical thicc, bigger bum/boobs).
Male ideals in media
- Leit, Pope & Gray 2001
- Frederick et al 2005
- (look at magazine covers)
- Morrison, Morrison & Sager 2014
- Leit, Pope & Gray 2001- cultural norms become increasingly muscular. “Ideal BMI” does not adequately capture this variation.
- Frederick et al 2005- M image mags aimed at M increasingly more muscular than those aimed at women. -objectified M bodies increasingly part of visual stimuli.
(80s- normal thin, hairy, 90s- muscles, 00s- bigger muscles, 10s- bigger & maybe beard).
-Morrison, Morrison & Sager 2014- hetero M more body satisfaction v gay M, however no diff b/w F sexual orientations.
