Elsevier

Body Image

Volume 28, March 2019, Pages 101-109
Body Image

Appearance comparison and other appearance-related influences on body dissatisfaction in everyday life

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.01.002Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We explored appearance-related predictors of state body dissatisfaction.

  • Upward appearance comparisons predicted increased dissatisfaction.

  • This effect remained after controlling for appearance comments and self-monitoring.

  • Appearance comments also emerged as predictors of state body dissatisfaction.

Abstract

Although appearance comparisons, self-monitoring, and appearance-related comments have been linked to body dissatisfaction in prior studies, the combined and unique influences of these variables on state body dissatisfaction in daily life has yet to be explored. The present study addressed this gap, and also evaluated whether these state-based effects were stronger for individuals with trait-level body image disturbances (internalization and body dissatisfaction). Eighty-four women completed baseline measures of trait internalization and body dissatisfaction, and then reported momentary experiences of body dissatisfaction, appearance self-monitoring, appearance-related comments, and appearance-based comparisons at up to 10 random times daily for seven days. Multilevel analyses confirmed that both appearance comparisons and commentary (both negative and positive) were predictive of changes in state body dissatisfaction when modelled individually as well as in a combined (full) model. Appearance self-monitoring was not a significant predictor, either individually or in the full model. These within-person relationships were not moderated by individual differences in trait body dissatisfaction and internalization of appearance standards. Accordingly, experiences of body dissatisfaction in daily life may be a common reaction to negative appearance comments and unflattering comparisons, yet positive comments and/or efforts to avoid appearance-based comparisons may have a positive effect on one’s body image.

Introduction

Body dissatisfaction levels in daily life are known to fluctuate (Fuller-Tyszkiewicz et al., 2015; Lattimore & Hutchinson, 2010), even among those with elevated trait body image disturbances (Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, Richardson, Lewis, Smyth, & Krug, 2018; Melnyk, Cash, & Janda, 2004). Accumulated literature has drawn upon theoretical frameworks such as objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) and the tripartite influence model (van den Berg, Thompson, Obremski-Brandon, & Coovert, 2002) and empirical findings from cross-sectional and experimental studies to identify potential predictors of state-like shifts in body dissatisfaction in daily life. Of these, perhaps the most commonly tested and supported predictor is appearance-based comparisons (e.g., Fardouly, Pinkus, & Vartanian, 2017; Fitzsimmons-Craft et al., 2015, 2016; Leahey & Crowther, 2008; Leahey, Crowther, & Mickelson, 2007). Several other appearance-related predictors (notably, appearance self-monitoring and appearance-related comments) have also been linked to state body dissatisfaction (2016, Fitzsimmons-Craft et al., 2015; Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, Dias, Krug, Richardson, & Fassnacht, 2018; Jones, Crowther, & Ciesla, 2014; Mills & Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, 2018), though there has been limited testing of these appearance-related predictors simultaneously. The present study contributes incrementally to this body of literature by evaluating: (a) individual and combined contributions of these appearance-related predictors of state body dissatisfaction, and (b) moderation of these state-based relationships by trait-level individual difference factors.

The tripartite influence model (van den Berg et al., 2002) identifies peers, family, and the media as key sources of social influence on body image. These influences may be direct, via teasing and other general appearance-related comments (positive or negative), or instructions for how to attain a specific body size. These social influences may also be conveyed indirectly, for instance, via modelling of behavior from others. Objectification theory emphasizes that these sociocultural messages are persistent and pervasive, and have a sexually objectifying nature (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). These messages encourage women to internalize the objectifying observer’s perspective of their body, both in terms of the importance of physical attractiveness and the need to strive for a highly idealized and unrealistic physique (the ‘thin ideal’). This internalization manifests behaviorally as body self-surveillance and comparison with others, ultimately leading to dissatisfaction with one’s appearance because the ‘thin ideal’ is unattainable for most women.

Extant literature broadly supports the role of these appearance-related factors in body dissatisfaction. Cross-sectional findings show that those with elevated trait body dissatisfaction more regularly engage in appearance-related conversations with others (Jones, Vigfusdottir, & Lee, 2004; Lawler & Nixon, 2011), appearance-related comparisons with more attractive individuals (Bailey & Ricciardelli, 2010; O’Brien et al., 2009), and self-monitoring of their appearance (Grippo & Hill, 2008). Trait body dissatisfied individuals are also more likely to report feelings of appearance-related self-consciousness in social contexts (Levinson & Rodebaugh, 2012), and are more likely to report being teased about their appearance (Menzel et al., 2010). Furthermore, experimental studies have demonstrated more negative body image following exposure to media portrayals of idealized physiques (Hausenblas et al., 2013) and objectifying contexts that make one self-conscious of how they look to others (Moradi & Huang, 2008).

More recently, researchers have used the experience sampling method (ESM) to explore influences on body dissatisfaction experienced in daily life. Although this approach is typically non-experimental, and hence does not control for extraneous influences as an experimental design would, participants self-report their current body dissatisfaction at a given moment in time as well as contextual variables (e.g., whether they were recently exposed to appearance-related comments or engaged in appearance comparisons), potentially enhancing ecological validity (Shiffman, Stone, & Hufford, 2008). Studies utilizing this approach have shown that state body dissatisfaction ratings are elevated following upwardly directed (i.e., against more attractive individuals) appearance comparisons (Fardouly et al., 2017; Fitzsimmons-Craft et al., 2015; Leahey & Crowther, 2008; Leahey et al., 2007; Leahey, Crowther, & Ciesla, 2011; Myers, Ridolfi, Crowther, & Ciesla, 2012; Ridolfi, Myers, Crowther, & Ciesla, 2011). There is also some evidence that comparisons to social media images rather than in-person, or to dissimilar targets, may have more pronounced effects on body dissatisfaction (Fardouly et al., 2017; Leahey & Crowther, 2008), although in an Australian context at least, evidence suggests that such comparisons may be less common in daily life than in-person comparisons (Fardouly et al., 2017).

Fewer studies have evaluated the effects of appearance-related comments and appearance self-monitoring on body dissatisfaction in daily life. However, the extant literature suggests that state body dissatisfaction is more common when an individual is focused on their appearance (Fitzsimmons-Craft et al., 2015; Stefano, Hudson, Whisenhunt, Buchanan, & Latner, 2016), and that engagement in appearance-related conversations may be associated with greater body dissatisfaction (Jones et al., 2014; Mills & Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, 2018). Jones et al. (2014) found that appearance-related conversations were also related to body self-monitoring. However, as the authors were interested in a specific form of appearance conversation (fat talk), the unique effects of positive and negative appearance-related comments on body dissatisfaction could not be ascertained. Fitzsimmons-Craft et al. (2015) showed that appearance-related comparisons and body self-monitoring were positively related, yet both were uniquely predictive of state body satisfaction contemporaneously. Body self-monitoring remained a significant predictor in lagged analyses (i.e., predicting body dissatisfaction at a subsequent time point), but appearance comparisons did not. It is worth noting, however, that body comparisons were operationalized in Fitzsimmons-Craft et al. (2016) as frequency of comparison, and direction of comparison was not factored into analyses. As participants were only assessed three times per day, it is also possible that the lengthy intervals between assessments led to under-estimation of the effects of these predictors on body dissatisfaction (e.g., see Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, Karvounis, Pemberton, Hartley-Clark, & Richardson, 2017 and Kockler, Santangelo, & Ebner-Priemer, 2018 for effects of timing on magnitude of state-based relationships).

The present study builds on this prior research in two key respects: (a) it explores the combined and relative contributions of these appearance-related predictors (self-monitoring, comparisons, and comments) on changes in state body dissatisfaction; and (b) it evaluates whether these relationships are moderated by trait-level differences in body image (specifically, internalization of the thin ideal and trait body dissatisfaction). With the exception of Fitzsimmons-Craft et al. (2016), we are unaware of any attempts to explore some combination of these appearance-related variables for predicting state-like shifts in body dissatisfaction in daily life. Given both the conceptual relation and empirical link among these proposed predictors, modelling of these predictors separately is likely to have overestimated the effects of each of these state-based influences separately, yet underestimated their combined influence on state body dissatisfaction. Consistent with prior research, it was predicted that state body dissatisfaction ratings would be higher following an upward comparison relative to pre-comparison state body dissatisfaction levels (Hypothesis 1). Similiarly, it was predicted that negative appearance self-monitoring and appearance-related comments would be predictive of increased state body dissatisfaction (Hypotheses 2 and 3, respectively). However, it was expected that positive appearance-related comments would be predictive of decreased state body dissatisfaction (Hypothesis 4). It was also expected that, in combination, the predictors would account for more variance in state body dissatisfaction than any of these predictors modelled separately (Hypothesis 5). No hypothesis was formulated regarding which predictor would have the strongest unique contribution given the absence of prior literature to guide such predictions.

A secondary focus of the present study was to evaluate whether the strength of association between these appearance-related predictors and state body dissatisfaction depend on an individual’s level of trait body image disturbance. Evaluation of potential trait-level moderators of state-based body image experiences is important because it may provide further insights into why exactly some individuals have greater body image disturbances than others. Guided by the premise that individuals with trait-level body image disturbances are more reactive to negative influences on body dissatisfaction, it was predicted that individuals who more strongly internalize the thin ideal and/or who are more dissatisfied with their appearance in general would experience stronger increases in state body dissatisfaction following exposure to upward comparisons, negative appearance comments, or through engaging in appearance self-monitoring (Hypothesis 6).

Section snippets

Participants

Participants were women aged 18–40 recruited through social media and online advertisements to students at Deakin University. Although 108 women signed up for the study and downloaded the smartphone app used for data collection, 24 participants were excluded from the data analysis stage because they completed less than 50% of the experience sampling assessments (nmax = 70 assessments). The decision was made to retain participants with at least 50% compliance as this equates to approximately

Compliance rates and descriptive statistics

The average number of responses completed per participant (out of a possible 70) was 45.3 (SD = 11.7), and the average interval between ESM assessments was 96 min (SD = 66 min). Compliance rates for ESM surveys were not significantly related to BMI, r(83) = .03, p =  .805 (two-tailed), employment status, r(83) = .01, p =  .957 (two-tailed), or hours of work per week, r(65) = −.23, p =  .059 (two-tailed), main language spoken at home, r(83) = −.17, p =  .114 (two-tailed), highest level of

Discussion

Consistent with tenets of the tripartite influence model (van den Berg et al., 2002) and objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997), several common appearance-related behaviours (appearance-based comparisons, self-monitoring, and appearance-related comments) have been shown to predict state-like shifts in women’s body dissatisfaction levels in daily life (e.g., Fardouly et al., 2017; Fitzsimmons-Craft et al., 2015; Jones et al., 2014; Leahey et al., 2007; Ridolfi et al., 2011).

Conflict of interest

The lead author is an Associate Editor for Body Image. None of the other authors have a conflict of interest to declare.

References (50)

  • P. Lattimore et al.

    Perceived calorie intake and state body-image satisfaction in women attempting weight loss: A preliminary investigation

    Body Image

    (2010)
  • T.M. Leahey et al.

    An ecological momentary assessment of comparison target as a moderator of the effects of appearance-focused social comparisons

    Body Image

    (2008)
  • T.M. Leahey et al.

    An ecological momentary assessment of the effects of weight and shape social comparisons on women with eating pathology, high body dissatisfaction, and low body dissatisfaction

    Behavior Therapy

    (2011)
  • T.M. Leahey et al.

    The frequency, nature, and effects of naturally occurring appearance-focused social comparisons

    Behavior Therapy

    (2007)
  • C.A. Levinson et al.

    Social anxiety and eating disorder comorbidity: The role of negative social evaluation fears

    Eating Behaviors

    (2012)
  • S.E. Melnyk et al.

    Body image ups and downs: Prediction of intra-individual level and variability of women’s daily body image experiences

    Body Image

    (2004)
  • J.E. Menzel et al.

    Appearance-related teasing, body dissatisfaction, and disordered eating: A meta-analysis

    Body Image

    (2010)
  • J. Mills et al.

    Nature and consequences of positively-intended fat talk in daily life

    Body Image

    (2018)
  • T.A. Myers et al.

    The impact of appearance-focused social comparisons on body image disturbance in the naturalistic environment: The roles of thin-ideal internalization and feminist beliefs

    Body Image

    (2012)
  • K.S. O’Brien et al.

    Upward and downward physical appearance comparisons: Development of scales and examination of predictive qualities

    Body Image

    (2009)
  • C.S. Pomerleau et al.

    Body image, body satisfaction, and eating patterns in normal-weight and overweight/obese women current smokers and never-smokers

    Addictive Behaviors

    (2007)
  • L.A. Ricciardelli et al.

    Psychometric evaluation of the Body Change Inventory: An assessment instrument for adolescent boys and girls

    Eating Behaviors

    (2002)
  • A. Rogers et al.

    A person-by-situation account of why some people more frequently engage in upward appearance comparison behaviors in everyday life

    Behavior Therapy

    (2017)
  • E.C. Stefano et al.

    Examination of body checking, body image dissatisfaction, and negative affect using ecological momentary assessment

    Eating Behaviors

    (2016)
  • P. van den Berg et al.

    The tripartite influence model of body image and eating disturbance: A covariance structure modeling investigation testing the mediational role of appearance comparison

    Journal of Psychosomatic Research

    (2002)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text