Men Body Image - Assignment Example

Men Body Image Issues Body image is a multidimensional construct encompassing self-perceptions and attitudes regarding ones physical appearance. Two core facets of body-image attitudes include evaluation (e.g., body satisfaction) and investment (e.g., the psychological importance one places on ones appearance; Cash, 38). Moreover, these attitudes may be assessed relative to overall appearance or with regard to specific physical characteristics, such as body weight or shape. Body image has received increasing empirical and clinical attention (Cash, 40; Thompson, 181), in part because of the high prevalence of body-image concerns especially among females in Western societies (e.g., Cash, 270; Striegel-Moore, Silberstein, & Rodin, Press). A negative body image can result in adverse psychosocial consequences for both sexes, including disordered eating (Cash, 271; Stice, 825), depression (Noles, Cash, & Winstead, 90), social anxiety (Cash, 41), impaired sexual functioning (Wiederman, 287), poor self-esteem (Powell & Hendricks, 333), and diminished quality of life (Cash & Fleming, 273). Researchers, clinicians, media, and the public have been intrigued by the question “Has negative body image increased over time?” Prevalence rates of “negative body image” or “body-image disturbance” are difficult to quantify, largely because of inconsistency in defining such concepts (Cash, 275). Many researchers equate these terms with “body (or body-image) dissatisfaction,” including any displeasure with one or more aspects of ones body or ones overall physical attractiveness. Although this unidimensional approach is limited, prevalence data in which body satisfaction has been used to define overall body image are often cited, especially data from large-sample surveys conducted in 1972, 1985, and 1996 and published in Psychology Today (Berscheid, Walster, & Bohrnstedt, 119; Garner, 80). The comparative results of these surveys frequently have been offered as evidence that both sexes body image has worsened substantially over the ensuing 25 years. Although these three surveys provide a wealth of information on the epidemiological patterns and correlates of body-image dissatisfaction, Cash (p. 277) has questioned their accuracy. First, the samples were self-selected, potentially overrepresenting individuals with greater body-image concerns. Second, although the 1972 and 1985 surveys involved a stratified sample similar to the U.S. census on particular demographics, the 1996 survey included only the initial 4,000 surveys returned. Third, preamble instructions, item wording, and scaling formats differed across the surveys. In 1993, Cash and Henry (see Cash & Henry, 19) conducted a more empirically sound survey of American womens body-image attitudes using the validated Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ; see Cash, 2000). A statistical comparison with the 1985 Psychology Today survey, in which the MBSRQ was also used, indicated that although overall appearance evaluation had worsened, womens overweight preoccupation had actually lessened. Sondhaus, Kurtz, and Strube (p. 413) cross-sectionally compared the body-image attitudes of college men and women assessed at the same institution in 1966 and 1996. These researchers found that women reported significantly more body satisfaction in 1966 than in 1996, yet there were no differences in mens body-image attitudes between the two points in time. In addition, women were found to be more satisfied with their bodies than men in 1966, and the opposite was observed in 1996. The latter difference has been repeatedly supported by other recent research. For example, Muth and Cash (p. 1438) found that college women report significantly more negative body-image evaluations, greater psychological investments in their appearance, and more frequent body-image dysphoria than do their male peers. In a comprehensive meta-analysis of gender differences in body satisfaction, Feingold and Mazzella (p. 190) examined 222 studies conducted over a 50-year period. They compared effect-size differences between men and women on various measures of body-image evaluation across four chronological (i.e., year of study) categories: pre-1970, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990–1995. The progressively larger effect sizes observed over time indicated that reports of appearance satisfaction among women and men became increasingly disparate. The authors concluded that either womens, but not mens, body image worsened over time or womens dissatisfaction increased more precipitously. Although these studies collectively evince diminishing body-image satisfaction among women at least through the mid-1990s, other investigations point to different conclusions. Rozin, Trachtenberg, and Cohen (p. 245) cross-sectionally examined body-image changes in men and women attending the University of Pennsylvania from 1983 to 1998. They used a figural body-image assessment whereby participants selected their self-perceived body size and ideal body size from a progression of nine “silhouette” drawings. The index of body dissatisfaction was a signed difference score (self minus ideal). The researchers found no differences in the scores between two time periods (1983–1984 vs. 1995–1998) for either gender, despite modest increases in body mass index (BMI). Unfortunately, two key flaws in this investigation undermined the authors conclusion of no change over the past two decades, including no change in gender differences (contrary to Feingold & Mazzella, 193). First, because they compared only two time periods, with no data from 1985 to 1994, it is possible that there were curvilinear changes over the 15-year period (e.g., a worsening of body image followed by an equivalent improvement). Second, in addition to recognized shortcomings of the silhouette methodology itself (Thompson & Gardner, Press), the use of signed discrepancy scores is problematic. For example, especially among men, whose body dissatisfaction entails desires to be slimmer as well as desires to be heavier, analyzing signed discrepancies rather than absolute values can produce erroneous conclusions (Keeton, Cash, & Brown, 215). In marked contrast, two studies have suggested recent improvements in body satisfaction. Heatherton, Nichols, Mahamedi, and Keel (p. 1623) surveyed 1,200 students at Radcliffe College in 1982 and 1992. Interestingly, despite significant weight gains over time among women, a smaller percentage considered themselves overweight in 1992 (31%) in comparison with the cohort of women surveyed in 1982 (42%). The women in the 1992 cohort were also relatively less likely to report a desire to lose weight, despite no comparable reduction in scores on the Drive for Thinness subscale of the Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI; Garner, Olmsted, & Polivy, 17). There were very few differences among men over the 10-year period. Subsequently, Heatherton and his colleagues (Heatherton, Mahamedi, Striepe, Field, & Keel, 117) conducted a 10-year longitudinal study of the 1982 sample. Despite an average weight gain of 4 pounds (1.8 kg) over the decade, women reported a reduced drive to be thin and were more likely to regard themselves as average in weight rather than overweight. Furthermore, they were less likely to be dieting or to want to lose weight in 1992 than in 1982. Men, on the other hand, had gained an average of 12 pounds (5.4 kg) over the decade and reported a number of opposite eating and “body-image” patterns than women. Although Heatherton and his colleagues (p. 119) offered informative and novel perspectives on the pattern of body-image change over this period, their research involved several limitations. First, in both studies the researchers used the EDI Drive for Thinness subscale to measure body dissatisfaction rather than the EDI Body Dissatisfaction subscale, arguably assuming that if an individual has a desire to be thin, he or she is dissatisfied with his or her appearance. Moreover, ones physical appearance is not wholly defined by ones weight. People may be dissatisfied with multiple, or very specific, aspects of their body that are unrelated to weight (e.g., muscle tone, facial features, or hair). As a result, relying solely on the Drive for Thinness subscale and self-classified weight to index appearance dissatisfaction is limiting, and Heatherton and his colleagues conclusions about changes in body dissatisfaction are potentially misleading. Second, the observed longitudinal changes may simply have revealed the typical developmental changes in body image that occur from 20 to 30 years of age (Feingold & Mazzella, 197; Striegel-Moore & Franko, 246; Whitbourne & Skultety, 90). Third, like Cash and Henry (p. 25), Rozin et al. (p. 246), and Sondhaus et al. (p. 415), Heatherton et al. (1625) compared only two time periods. Although revealing, such linear data do not provide an understanding of the path that the body-image experiences of women and men had taken between those two points in time. It is more conclusive to determine the pattern over more than two time periods, as was done by Feingold and Mazzella (p. 198) in their meta-analysis of four periods ending in 1995. In view of the clear relationship between body image and various facets of psychosocial functioning, the question of whether body image has changed over the past two decades is an important one. As noted earlier, body-image problems are associated with eating disturbances and disorders, depression, social anxiety, sexual difficulties, and poorer overall self-esteem (see Cash & Pruzinsky, Press). These findings have been derived largely from adolescent and young, college-student samples. Thus, any cross-sectionally observed body-image changes in this population have implications for other aspects of their well-being. The question of body-image changes is also significant given the fact that it is often assumed, on the basis of widely cited yet problematic comparisons of magazine surveys, that body image has worsened and continues to worsen for both sexes. Therefore, the purpose of our cross-sectional investigation was to improve substantially on previous research by evaluating changes in body image from 1983 to 2001, using archival data from 22 published and unpublished studies collected at one university based on Cashs (2000) standardized MBSRQ. Unlike earlier research that used only one measure or assessed only one facet of the body-image construct (e.g., body satisfaction or weight concern), we examined patterns of change over this 19-year span on multiple dimensions of body image: overall body-image evaluation, satisfaction with discrete body areas and attributes, preoccupation with being or becoming overweight, and cognitive-behavioral investment in ones physical appearance. Moreover, rather than comparing only two points in time separated by many years, we compared participants over five specific time periods. Works Cited Berscheid, E., Walster, E., & Bohrnstedt, G. (2003, November). The happy American body: A survey report. Psychology Today, 7, 119–131. Cash, T. F. (2000). Manual for the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire. (3rd rev.). Document available for purchase at the authors Web site at http://www.body-images.com Cash, T. F. (2002a). Cognitive behavioral perspectives on body image. In T. F.Cash & T.Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 38–46). New York: Guilford Press. Cash, T. F. (2002b). A “negative body image:” Evaluating epidemiological evidence. In T. F.Cash & T.Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 269–276). New York: Guilford Press. Cash, T. F. (2002c). Womens body images. In G.Wingood & R.DiClemente (Eds.), Handbook of womens sexual and reproductive health (pp. 175–194). New York: Plenum. Cash, T. F., & Deagle, E. A., III. (1997). The nature and extent of body-image disturbances in anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 22, 107–125. Cash, T. F., & Fleming, E. C. (2002a). Body image and social relations. In T. F.Cash & T.Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 277–286). New York: Guilford Press. Cash, T. F., & Fleming, E. C. (2002b). The impact of body-image experiences: Development of the Body Image Quality of Life Inventory. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 31, 455–460. Cash, T. F., & Henry, P. E. (1995). Womens body images: The results of a national survey in the U.S.A. Sex Roles, 33, 19–28. Cash, T. F., Melnyk, S. E., & Hrabosky, J. I. (2004). The assessment of body-image investment: An extensive revision of the Appearance Schemas Inventory. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 35, 305–316. Cash, T. F., & Pruzinsky, T. (Eds.). (2002). Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice. New York: Guilford Press. Cash, T. F., & Strachan, M. D. (2002). Cognitive-behavioral approaches to changing body image. In T. F.Cash & T.Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 478–486). New York: Guilford Press. Cash, T. F., Winstead, B. A., & Janda, L. H. (1986, April). The great American shape-up: Body image survey report. Psychology Today. pp. 30–37. Feingold, A., & Mazzella, R. (1998). Gender differences in body image are increasing. Psychological Science, 9, 190–199. Garner, D. M. (1997, January/February). The 1997 body image survey results. Psychology Today. pp. 30–44.75–80, 84. Garner, D. M., Olmstead, M. P., & Polivy, J. (1983). Development and validation of a multidimensional eating disorder inventory for anorexia nervosa and bulimia. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 2, 15–34. Heatherton, T. F., Mahamedi, F., Striepe, M., Field, A. E., & Keel, P. (1997). A 10-year longitudinal study of body weight, dieting, and eating disorder symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 117–125. Heatherton, T. F., Nichols, P., Mahamedi, F., & Keel, P. (1995). Body weight, dieting, and eating disorder symptoms among college students, 1982 to 1992. American Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 1623–1629. Keeton, W. P., Cash, T. F., & Brown, T. A. (1990). Body image or body images? Comparative, multidimensional assessment among college students. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54, 213–230. Muth, J. L., & Cash, T. F. (1997). Body-image attitudes: What difference does gender make?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1438–1452. Noles, S. W., Cash, T. F., & Winstead, B. A. (2005). Body image, physical attractiveness, and depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 88–94. Powell, M. R., & Hendricks, B. (1999). Body schema, gender, and other correlates in nonclinical populations. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 125, 333–412. Rozin, P., Trachtenberg, S., & Cohen, A. B. (2001). Stability of body image and body image dissatisfaction in American college students over about the last 15 years. Appetite, 37, 245–248. Sondhaus, E. L., Kurtz, R. M., & Strube, M. J. (2001). Body attitude, gender, and self-concept: A 30-year perspective. Journal of Psychology, 135, 413–429. Stice, E. (2002). Risk and maintenance factors for eating pathology: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 825–848. Striegel-Moore, R. H., & Franko, D. L. (2002). Body image issues among girls and women. In T. F.Cash & T.Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 183–191). New York: Guilford Press. Striegel-Moore, R. H., Silberstein, L. R., & Rodin, J. (1996). Toward an understanding of risk factors for bulimia. American Psychologist, 41, 246–259. Thompson, J. K., & Gardner, R. M. (2002). Measuring perceptual body image among adolescents and adults. In T. F.Cash & T.Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory research, and clinical practice (pp. 135–141). New York: Guilford Press. Thompson, J. K., & Stice, E. (2001). Thin-ideal internalization: Mounting evidence for a new risk factor for body-image disturbance and eating pathology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 181–183. Whitbourne, S. K., & Skultety, K. M. (2002). Body image development: Adulthood and aging. In T. F.Cash & T.Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 83–90). New York: Guilford Press. Wiederman, M. W. (2002). Body image and sexual functioning. In T. F.Cash & T.Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 287–294). New York: Guilford Press. Read More