Social Comparison and Body Image: Attractiveness Comparisons to ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

654 Jones hips and thighs from the original scale were retained for the girls, but were altered for the boys to assess their satisfaction with chest and bicep size. The selection of these specific body parts for the boys was based conceptually on the relevance of upper body muscularity for boys and empirically on factor loadings for evaluating male body esteem (Franzoi & Shields, 1984). The final scales had adequate internal reliability for girls (α = .88) and boys (α = .82). Body Mass Index. Body size has been implicated in the development of body image dissatisfaction (Rosenblum & Lewis, 1999). Therefore, body mass index was used in the design as a control variable. Previous research has established that self-reported weight and height are reliable (Brooks-Gunn, Warren, Rosso, & Gargiulo, 1987). From the students’ self-reported height and weight, a body mass index was computed using the formula, Body Mass Index (BMI) = kg/m 2 . Results Social Comparisons to Models/Celebrities and Peers A series of Gender (2) × Grade (2) × (Target) (2) repeated-measures ANOVAs evaluated differences in the levels of reported social comparison to models and peers on Physical Attractiveness (height, weight, shape, and face) and Personal/Social Attributes (style, personality, intelligence, popularity). Repeated-measures analyses are the appropriate technique when comparing similar measures rated by the same individuals. Because of the multiple number of analyses, Bonferroni’s correction was used to set the significance level at p
Social Comparison and Body Image 655 Table III. Means and Standard Deviations for Social Comparison to Models and Same-Sex Peers by Gender Girls Boys Models Same-sex Models Same-sex celebrities peers celebrities peers Significant factors Physical attributes Height 2.05 (1.21) 2.38 (1.22) 1.81 (1.05) 2.55 (1.21) Target; Target × Gender Weight 2.86 (1.34) 2.98 (1.27) 1.90 (1.05) 2.36 (1.13) Target; Target × Gender Shape/build 3.12 (1.24) 2.95 (1.27) 2.62 (1.00) 2.69 (1.15) Sex; Grade Face 3.20 (1.33) 3.16 (1.30) 2.45 (1.32) 2.40 (1.23) Sex; Grade Personal/social attributes Personality 2.24 (1.25) 3.16 (1.31) 2.23 (1.20) 2.64 (1.25) Target; Target × Gender; Target × Grade Intelligence 2.22 (1.26) 2.93 (1.31) 2.34 (1.34) 2.91 (1.29) Target Style 3.28 (1.26) 3.36 (1.21) 2.68 (1.31) 2.75 (1.25) Sex Popularity 2.37 (1.26) 2.94 (1.33) 2.36 (1.30) 2.76 (1.22) Target; Target × Grade Personality comparisons were more likely to be directed at same-sex peers (M = 2.87) than models (M = 2.25), F(1, 404) = 123.48, p
Page 1 and 2: Sex Roles, Vol. 45, Nos. 9/10, Nove
Page 3 and 4: Social Comparison and Body Image 64
Page 9: Social Comparison and Body Image 65

Social Comparison and Body Image: Attractiveness Comparisons to ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?