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.
Epidemiology of body dissatisfaction.
-Fredderick et al 2016
- Frederick et al 2016- N= 12,176, online survey, ptcpts aged 18-64 y/o.
- very few ppl neutral.
- F more dissatisfied.
- appearance diss is less common compared to weight diss.
Determinants of appearance & weight dissatisfaction
- Fredderick et al 2016
- Peplav et al 2009.
- Fredderick et al 2016- N= 12,176, online survey, ptcpts aged 18-64 y/o.
- M & F didn’t differ on satisfaction for appearance at normal weight, or weight & appearance at class III obesity.
- in all other weight classes- F weight & appearance diss was greater than males.
- -overall M more satisfied.
-Peplav et al 2009- found links b/w discomfort with sex lives in both M & F with weight & appearance diss.
Which BMI linked to highest appearance satisfaction?
-Frederick et al 2016
Frederick et al 2016- F 19, M= 22-25.
-smaller BMI (close to ideal) more appearance satisfaction.
Which BMI linked to highest weight satisfaction?
-Frederick et al 2016
Frederick et al 2016- F= 18-20, M= 22-23
- women aiming at lower ideal body weight
- 18.5 and 24.9 is healthy weight range for reference.
How might media images cause body dissatisfaction?
- sociocultural theory
- objectification theory
- -sexual objectification
-ppl differ on whether they find media ideals meaningful & whether they adopt them.
- Sociocultural Theory= some ppl aspire to resemble media images cus they see benefits of attaining the ideal body (Internalisation).
- -they compare themselves to media images (Appearance Comparison) & this comparison makes them body-dissatisfied ——-feeds cycle.
- Objectification Theory= in Western societies bodies- particularly F- are socially constructed as Objects to be looked at & evaluated on appearance.
- -far more gender equal now.
- -objectification is easier when ppl broken down to sum of their parts- dehumanising (pair of legs)
- –happens in obesity ads- fat rolls & chips.
- -Sexual Objectification- is frequent & pervasive- makes individuals internalise an observer’s perspective of their own bodies.
- –they perceive themselves as an object to be looked at & evaluated on appearance, a process termed “Self-Objectification”.
Experimental exposure of media images
- Levine & Murnen 2009
- Ferguson 2013
- Levine & Murnen 2009- exposure to media depicting the ideal body may be linked to body image disturbances in F & M.
- studies have experimentally exposed ptcpts to images of ideal body, measuring body diss & ED symps before & after.
- However
- Ferguson 2013- review 204 studies- concluded Overall effects on psychologically healthy individuals are rather small.
- BUT women with Pre-Existing Dissatisfaction, were far more susceptible to experimental effects of images.
- -greater salience of these appearance stimuli to vulnerable women may have lead to neg schema-driven processing.
Media exposure: social networking sites
-Holland & Tiggemann 2016
- SNS- research into this new media- predictive of probs & dissatisfaction.
- Holland & Tiggemann 2016- lit review of SNS us, body image & EDs found 20 correlational studies
- -SNS associated with neg body image & disordered eating.
- -specific activities: viewing/uploading photos & seeking neg feedback via status updates- appear particularly problematic.
- -appearance-based social comparisons- mediated relationships b/w SNS use & body image & eating concerns.
- -made more comparisons on these sites.
- -effects of SNSs seen both M & F.
How to resist media influence
- Hobbs 1998
- Bergsam & Carney 2008
- Hobbs 1998- media literacy competencies should be promoted to help resist media influence through critical reviewing.
- Bergsam & Carney 2008- critical viewing thought buffer the pervasive influence of media msgs.
Media is a “Meta-Context”: a summary
- media influences many parts of enviro for young ppl: school, uni, fam, peers & sports.
- content present, elaborate & reinforce the schematic ingredients of body dissatisfaction.
- -e.g. dove armpit campaign.
- being exposed to mass media doesn’t directly cause clinical eating syndromes but may Strengthen psychopathological processes, induce neg cognitive-emotional experiences & activate cognitive behavioural tendencies.
- this happens via internalisation of ideals, social appearance comparisons, self-objectification & activation of appearance-based schemas or self v ideal discrepancies.
“Thinspiration”
-Ghaznavi & Taylor 2015
- actively pro-anorexic, anti-recovery content.
- Pintrest content less extreme than Twitter.
- promotes self-objectification, unhealthy beauty standards & encourages segmented view of oneself.
- “Tips” include calorie restriction, distracting oneself from hunger, deceiving health professionals & burning calories.
- Instagram crack down on hastags.
-Ghaznavi & Taylor 2015- narratives around control v indulgence, strength v weakness, willpower v failure.
Is “Fitspiration” any better?
-Boepple & Thompson 2016
-more socially acceptable, but it can be dmging.
- The Fit Ideal- Boepple & Thompson 2016
- -fitspiration websites supposedly advocate fit & healthy lifestyle.
- -first 10 images from sample of 50 fit & 50 thinspiration websites were analysed for content on variety of weight, eating & appearance characteristics.
–Thin sites more content on:losing weight/fat, praising thinness, showing thin pose & food guilt msgs.
- -sites not differ on weight/body guilt msgs, fat/weight stigmatisation, use of objectifying phrases & dieting/restraint msgs.
- —-restraint, willpower-echoes thinspiration.
How does body dissatisfaction relate to clinical EDs?
- DSM-V criteria for AN & BN emphasise the core psychopathology around body image:
- -disturbance way one’s body weight or shape is experienced, undue influence of body shape & weight on self-eval, or persistent lack of recog of seriousness of current low body weight.
- -self eval is unduly influenced by body shape & weight.
- Body dissatisfaction is both a risk factor & symptom of EDs but body diss is prevalent whereas EDs are rare.
- the diff is partially Quantitative: body diss may be more intense, prolonged & freq in EDs.
- -freq of neg body image experiences.
What’s diff about body image in EDs?
–and partially qualitative.
- for individuals with EDs, body size, shape, weight, appearance & their control is the Most Important Domain of life & the primary determinant of self-worth.
- given 2 individuals with the same exposure to media & msgs about the body, certain factors may top one individual from “at risk” to clinically disordered & not the other.
Multifinality & Equifinality
- Multifinality- holds that similar initial conditions may lead to dissimilar outcomes.
- Equifinality- holds that a given outcome can be reached from any number of diff developmental paths.
Positive body image: a resilience factor?
- a,b,c,d,e.
- Wood-Barcalow et al 2010
- the Cognitive-Behavioural Model can also explain the development & maintenance of pos body image- defined as:
- -an overarching love & respect for the body that allows individuals to:
- -a- appreciate their body’s unique beauty & it’s functions.
- -b- accept & even admire body, including those parts inconsistent with ideal images.
- -c- feel beautiful, comfortable, confident & happy with body.
- -d- emphasise body’s assets rather than dwell on imperfections.
- -e- interpret incoming info in a body-protective way.
–Wood-Barcalow et al 2010- most pos info is internalised & most neg info is rejected or reframed.
–participation in ballet, body building & gymnatisc linked with ED but cricket etc is not…
