Does Size Matter? The Impact of ‘Body Perfect’ Ideals in the Media Helga Dittmar Dublin, 13th April 2010
Why worry? Media models’ body size versus reality • Gap between body ideal actual body • Exposure unavoidable (3,000+ ads a day) • Media models construct “reality” ≠ real • Unhealthy and abnormal body ideal • Biologically inappropriate • Artificial Dublin, 13th April 2010
Healthy and unhealthy 14 Media Weight 15 16 Underweight model 17 18 relative 19 20 21 to height 22 23 Average Normal 24 25 woman 26 27 28 29 Overweight 30 31 Body Mass 32 33 Index (BMI) 34 35 Obese 36 37 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 BMI Dublin, 13th April 2010
Body Image & Well-Being Body dissatisfaction Physical Health Mental Health Unhealthy body-shaping Negative affect, clinical behaviours disorders • Extreme dieting, disordered • Negative self-evaluation eating • Depression • Cosmetic surgery • Eating disorders • Abuse of medication & drugs • Body Dysmorphic Disorder • Extreme exercising Dublin, 13th April 2010
Meta analyses Women Men 25 experiments 10 experiments, 15 corr. studies Body dissatisfaction: d = -.31 Negative body image: d = -.22 exp ; d = -.19 corr (Groesz, Murnen, & Levine, IJED , 2002) (Barlett, Vowels, & Saucier, JSCP , 2008) 49 experiments, 28 corr. studies 15 experiments Body dissatisfaction: d = -.28 Body dissatisfaction: d = -.43 Eating behaviors: d = -.30 (Blond, Body Image , 2008) (Grabe, Ward, & Hyde, Psych Bull , 2008) Dublin, 13th April 2010
The big picture Positive Body Image Women (2005) Women (2008) Men (2008) Men (2008) No harm 0 Negative Body Image -0.45 Effect size Body Dissatisfaction Eating Dublin, 13th April 2010
State of the art? • Plenty of evidence that ‘body perfect’ exposure makes individuals feel bad about their bodies • Negative exposure effects may be stronger in adolescents than adults • What about children? Dublin, 13th April 2010
Media Exposure Model • Psychological Mechanism (mediator) • Self-Discrepancy Theory (Higgins, 1987) • Gaps between actual and ideal self as cause of negative affect • Chronic self-beliefs vs. acute activation* • Specific SDs related to ‘body perfect’ ideal • Activation of ideal-body SDs leads to negative body-focused affect (body dissatisfaction) * Dittmar & Halliwell, 2005, 2008 Dublin, 13th April 2010
Process Model Media Exposure Mediator Outcome Activation ‘Body Perfect’ Body-focused of ideal-body Ideals Negative affect self-discrepancies Dublin, 13th April 2010
Experiment 1 • Dolls embody female ‘body perfect’ ideal • Exposure experiment with images of dolls • 5-8-year-old girls • First exposure experiment with such young girls Dittmar, Halliwell, & Ive (2006) Developmental Psych • Does exposure to images of dolls cause actual-ideal body-size SDs? Dublin, 13th April 2010
Experiment 1 • Girls heard story about “Mira” • Picture book featuring images of • Thin dolls (Barbie) OR • Average-size dolls (Emme) OR • No dolls (control baseline) Dublin, 13th April 2010
Picture book with thin doll Dublin, 13th April 2010
Picture book average-size doll Taken from Dittmar (2007), image reproduced with kind permission of Tonner Inc. & Emme Model Agency Dublin, 13th April 2010
Picture book without doll Dublin, 13th April 2010
Experiment 1 • Girls heard story about “Mira” • Picture book featuring images of • Thin dolls (Barbie) OR • Average-size dolls (Emme) OR • No dolls (control baseline) • After exposure, measures of • Actual body size • Ideal body size Dublin, 13th April 2010
Actual vs. Ideal Body 4 3 4 – 3 = 1 Dublin, 13th April 2010
Body-size discrepancy 5 years 1.4 Girls’ actual-ideal 6 years body-size 1.2 discrepancy significantly 1 higher after 0.8 thin dolls than other images 0.6 0.4 0.2 7 year-olds no effect 0 Neutral Emme Barbie Dublin, 13th April 2010
Process Model in Adults • Cover story. A dvertising effectiveness • Stimuli. Sets of advertisements identical in background, product, slogan, except • Presence of idealised media model • OR absence of model (control) • Measures • (a) Self-Discrepancy Index (SDI) Dittmar et al., 1996, Acta Psych ; Halliwell & Dittmar, 2006, PSPB (b) Body-Focused Negative Affect (BFNA) adaptation of PASTAS, cf. Dittmar, 2008, Book Dublin, 13th April 2010
Ad with thin model* * research supported by ESRC, see Dittmar & Halliwell (2005) Dublin, 13th April 2010
Ad without model (control) Dublin, 13th April 2010
Experiment 2 • Exposure to ultra-thin models significantly stronger BFNA ( β = .21; p < .05) .21* Exposure to Body-focused ultra-thin models Negative affect Dittmar & Halliwell, 2007, APS Dublin, 13th April 2010
Experiment 2 • Exposure to ultra-thin models significantly stronger BFNA ( β = .21; p < .05) • Body-related self-discrepancy activation mediates this link (reduced to β = .09; ns) • Full mediation Activation .30* .52*** Exposure to Body-focused of weight-related ultra-thin models Negative affect self-discrepancies Dittmar & Halliwell, 2007, APS Dublin, 13th April 2010
Ad with muscular model Dublin, 13th April 2010
Ad without model (control) Dublin, 13th April 2010
Experiment 3 • Exposure to muscular models significantly stronger BFNA ( β = .27; p < .05) • Ideal-body self-discrepancy activation fully mediates this link ( β = .14; ns) • Activation of .36*** .39** Body-focused Exposure to muscularity-related Negative affect muscular models self-discrepancies Dittmar, Phillips, & Halliwell (in preparation), Study 3 Dublin, 13th April 2010
Process Model Media Exposure Mediator Outcome Activation ‘Body Perfect’ Body-focused of ideal-body Ideals Negative affect self-discrepancies • Model applicable to both women & men • Good support for process (full mediation) • Individual differences in vulnerability Dublin, 13th April 2010
New Media & Adolescence • Magazine advertisements (typically studied) • Media consumption changed • Music videos* • Computer games** • Teenage drama TV*** • Exposure to ‘Body Perfect’ Ideals causes greater body dissatisfaction • Important addition: Direct effect on eating behaviour *Bell, Lawton, & Dittmar (2007), Dittmar, Barker, & Bond (2010) **Dittmar, Bond, Moorehouse, & Rees (2010) ***Stonebridge & Dittmar (2010) Dublin, 13th April 2010
Do we need ‘perfect’ models? • Advertisers claim “thin models sell” • Evidence? • Our research = first systematic studies to examine claim • Experiments assessed advertising effectiveness Dublin, 13th April 2010
Advertising effectiveness 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Thin models Average models Dublin, 13th April 2010
Advertising effectiveness 9 Average-size 8 models = 7 Thin models 6 True for 5 different 4 products 3 personal care 2 make-up diet foods 1 0 Thin models Average models Dublin, 13th April 2010
Therefore… • Perceived advertising effectiveness not compromised by average-size models • No need for advertisers to use thin models • Average-size models no negative impact on body image (Dittmar & Howard, 2004) • Use alternative models! Dublin, 13th April 2010
Don’t need thin models to sell moisturiser Dublin, 13th April 2010
What can we do? • Intervention (e.g., in schools) • Critical media analysis • Increase body confidence • Other sources of self-worth • Advertising and media policy • Use of models with an average body size • Diversity of body shapes • Kitemark airbrushed models (clear labels) Dublin, 13th April 2010
Dublin, 13th April 2010
Dublin, 13th April 2010
Dublin, 13th April 2010
Recommend
More recommend
