Male Body Image: Satisfaction and Its Relationship to Well-Being Using the Somatomorphic Matrix

Transcription

1 Male Body Image: Satisfaction and Its Relationship to Well-Being Using the Somatomorphic Matrix GUY CAFRI Macalester College and JAINE STRAUSS Macalester College J. KEVIN THOMPSON University of South Florida In light of the increased recent research attention directed to the study of male body image (e.g., Pope, Phillips, & Olivardia, 2000), the somatomorphic matrix (Gruber, Pope, Borowiecki, & Cohane, 1999) was investigated in a sample of 60 male students from a Midwestern college. Significant muscle and body fat dissatisfaction was found. Contrary to past research with the somatomorphic matrix, bi-directional body fat dissatisfaction was noted, with approximately twothirds of the participants desiring less body fat and a third desiring more body fat. Muscle dissatisfaction was significantly associated with higher depression, lower self-esteem, and less satisfaction with life. Body fat dissatisfaction was not significantly associated with any of the assessed dimensions of psychological functioning. These data indicate that muscularity concerns of college men are significantly related to psychological functioning, suggesting that this dimension of body attitudes plays a significant role in men s self-concept. The authors would like to thank Amanda Gruber and Harrison Pope, Jr., for their input and help with the somatomorphic matrix. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to J. Kevin Thompson, Department of Psychology, University of South Florida. Tampa, Florida Electronic mail should be sent to jthompso@chuma1.cas.usf.edu. International Journal of Men s Health, Vol. 1, No. 2, May 2002, pp by the Men s Studies Press, LLC. All rights reserved. 215

2 CAFRI et al. Key Words: male body image, somatomorphic matrix, muscularity concerns, body attitudes, college men s self-concept Over the past 30 to 40 years, the male body has increasingly become a focal point of American culture (Pope, Phillips, & Olivardia, 2000). This is reflected by the increased presence of lean and muscular males on television, magazines, and movies (Bordo, 1999; Leit, Pope, & Gray, in press; Pope, Olivardia, Gruber, & Borowiecki, 1999). Males are now exposed to societal and interpersonal pressures to achieve an unrealistic muscular ideal, in a manner similar to the unrealistic thin ideal that women have encountered for the past 30 years (Thompson, Heinberg, Altabe, & Tantleff-Dunn, 1999). Increased muscularity in the media has been paralleled by greater discontent with a muscular appearance among males (cf. Berscheid, Walster, & Bohrnstedt, 1972; Cash, Winstead, & Janda, 1986; Garner, 1997). In fact, recent survey data indicate that males are more dissatisfied than women with the chest/breast region of their body (Garner, 1997). While most men are probably able to cope with their discontent, there exist cases where they may lack such skills, resulting in disordered attitudes and behaviors, such as poor selfesteem. Muscle dysmorphia, characterized by a pathological degree of discontent and/or misperception with respect to one s appearance of muscularity (Pope, Gruber, Choi, Olivardia, & Phillips, 1997; Pope, Katz, & Hudson, 1993), is a clinical example of a male body disorder. Given these concerns the following study attempted to assess male body satisfaction and its relationship to psychological functioning. A significant portion of body image research has been centered on the assessment of satisfaction. The empirical focus on satisfaction has had to do with the construct s relevance to eating disturbance and adverse psychological functioning (Thompson et al., 1999). While a number of Likert measures are available for the measurement of satisfaction, contour drawn silhouette scales remain the most popular method of assessment because of their high correlation with other validated Likert body image measures, the brief time of assessment required, and good face validity (Thompson et al., 1999). In general, silhouette measures consist of five to ten images arranged from thin to obese or non-muscular to extremely muscular. Participants select their own body and their ideal body from the figures they are presented. The difference between the self and ideal ratings is interpreted as a measure of dissatisfaction (Thompson, 1990). Typically, mean differences of these self-per- 216

3 MALE BODY IMAGE ceptions are assessed; however, dissatisfaction scores are frequently related to other outcome measures through correlation and regression approaches. Body image research has traditionally been limited in its assessment of a muscular appearance because of the historical relevance of a thin appearance, both clinically and non-clinically (Thompson et al., 1999). Many of the popular silhouette scales used to assess male satisfaction reflected this bias toward thinness by having the appearance of the figures vary only along the dimension of body fat (e.g., Collins, 1991; scales with figures adapted from Stunkard, Sorensen, & Schulsinger, 1983; Thompson, M. A., & Gray, 1995). There do, however, exist a number of silhouette scales that incorporate the appearance of muscularity into their figures (e.g., Lynch & Zellner, 1999; Thompson & Tantleff, 1992). While methodologically it seems appropriate to use both muscle and fat based silhouettes to assess satisfaction in males, the evaluation of these two facets of appearance separately may elicit inaccurate responses. 1 Additionally, Gardner, Friedman, and Jackson (1998) have reviewed a number of methodological concerns associated with these silhouette measures; they include but are not limited to scale coarseness, method of presentation, and scale of measurement. For instance, scale of measurement refers to the ordinal nature of the silhouette scales. This would not be a limitation if non-parametric statistics were used, but parametric statistics have been used in all studies reviewed by Gardner and colleagues (1998). This produces a situation by which the likelihood of making a Type I error is increased; there are significant effects when in fact there are not. The somatomorphic matrix (Gruber, Pope, Borowiecki, & Cohane, 1999) is a very promising method of assessing male body image for a number of reasons. First, its silhouettes vary concurrently in their degree of muscularity and adiposity. Having silhouettes vary in both degree of muscularity and adiposity allows satisfaction indices to be determined separately for each facet of appearance while subverting the aforementioned concern of inaccurate responses. Moreover, the methodological limitations outlined by Gardner and colleagues (1998) do not apply to this measure because of its computer interface and the nature of its validation process. Consequently, use of the somatomorphic matrix is crucial not only because it avoids a number of shortcomings inherent in past silhouette scales, but more importantly, because it enables the construct of muscularity to be assessed as an intact whole that can be separated into measurement of muscle and fat perceptions. The current study uses the somatomorphic matrix to assess the subjective 2 domain of male body image. The primary purpose of this study is to assess appearance satisfaction with respect to muscularity and body fat. Past 217

4 CAFRI et al. research with the somatomorphic matrix has been conducted only on males, with a consistent finding of significant dissatisfaction for muscularity but not body fat. One study found statistically significant muscle dissatisfaction, but not body fat, for three groups of college-aged males: Austrian, French, and American (Pope et al., 2000). The degree of dissatisfaction in that study was 3.4 fat-free mass index (FFMI; Kouri, Pope, Katz, & Olivardia, 1995), equivalent to desiring 27 pounds of muscle. In another study, statistically significant muscle and body fat dissatisfaction was found for American gymusing males (Gruber et al., 1999). The degree of muscle dissatisfaction in that study was 1.7 FFMI, equivalent to 15 pounds of muscle. Dissatisfaction was in the direction of wanting 4.1% less body fat. While recent research has indicated that males are dissatisfied with their bodies, the extent to which muscle and body fat satisfaction is individually associated with adverse psychological functioning remains to be determined. Therefore, the second objective of this study is to assess the relationship between these specific body satisfaction attitudes and psychological functioning. Using the drive for muscularity scale with high school males and females, McCreary and Sasse (2000) found that general attitudes and behaviors related to dissatisfaction with a muscular appearance were significantly associated with increased symptoms of depression and decreased self-esteem for males but not females. A recent study by McCreary and Sadava (2001) also indicated a significant relationship between body size and life satisfaction. Specifically, men who were underweight and women who were overweight reported lower life satisfaction than those in the other weight categories. Of course, this study looked at actual body weight rather than body image, indicating the need of investigating how perceptions influence life satisfaction. In the present study, attitudes concerning muscle satisfaction and body fat satisfaction will be assessed separately, and each will be related to the following dimensions of psychological functioning: self-esteem, depressive symptomatology, and overall life satisfaction. A third objective of this study is to examine the possibility of a discrepancy between cognitive (think) and affective (feel) domains of body image by adapting the protocol of self-ratings. Assuming both cognitive and affective self-perceptions exist, there are several reasons for separately examining these domains of body image. First, in terms of the development of explanatory models, a more realistic and comprehensive account is achieved if both domains are accounted for. Second, in the context of treating people with body image disturbance, knowledge of a distinction between two domains of self-perception and their respective correlates would enable a clinician to tar- 218

5 MALE BODY IMAGE get his or her therapy more effectively. Similarly, in a prevention setting a person may choose to apply different strategies to averting the development of body image disturbance if research indicates that two domains of self-perceptions exist. Preliminarily, we would examine mean differences and correlations of these self-ratings in order to assess whether two distinct self-perceptions emerge. If the data suggest that two domains exist, then we would proceed to associate each self-ideal difference with our measures of psychological functioning. No studies to date that have assessed both muscle and body fat satisfaction have looked at differing domains of self-perceptions. Using silhouette scales that assess only body fat satisfaction, greater dissatisfaction has been found with the affective rating protocol than the cognitive protocol for women (Thompson & Altabe, 1991; Thompson & Psaltis, 1988). The affective-ideal index (i.e., discrepancy scores) has been more strongly correlated with eating disturbance for men and women than the cognitive-ideal index (Altabe & Thompson, 1992; Thompson & Altabe, 1991). Moreover, the affective-ideal index has a stronger relationship to self-esteem for women than the cognitive-ideal index (Thompson & Altabe, 1991). As noted earlier, however, the silhouette measures used for these studies consisted of stimuli reflecting fatness and overall size, not muscularity. Assessing cognitive and affective aspects of body image in terms of muscle dissatisfaction would add a new direction to the extant literature. It is hypothesized that men will report significant muscle and body fat dissatisfaction, desiring more muscularity and less body fat. For both muscularity and body fat, the mean difference between self and ideal ratings is anticipated to be greater for the affective self-rating protocol than the cognitive protocol. Based on earlier work discrepancies in the range of FFMI, equivalent to pounds of additional muscle desired and 3-4% body fat are expected. Finally, it is also hypothesized that greater muscle and body fat dissatisfaction will be related to poorer psychological functioning. METHOD PARTICIPANTS Participants were 60 male students from a Midwestern college. The ethnicity of the participants were: Caucasian (N = 47), Asian (N = 6), Hispanic (N = 219

6 CAFRI et al. 3), mixed Caucasian (N = 2), and other (N = 1). Participants sexual orientations were: heterosexual (N = 53), bisexual (N = 4), homosexual (N = 1), and no response (N = 2). Participants were recruited from an introductory psychology class, responders to a pro bono advertisement of the study, and responders to an advertisement offering monetary compensation. Twelve participants were from the introductory psychology class, 25 were from the pro bono advertisement, and 23 were from the paid advertisement. Course credit was given to participants from the introductory psychology class, and $5 was given to the paid participants. Participant s ages ranged from 18 years to 23 years (M = 20.11, SD = 1.50). MEASURES Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression scale (CES-D). The CES-D is designed as a measure that detects depressive symptoms within non-clinical samples (Radloff, 1977). The scale consists of 20 items with a four-point response format. The CES-D has good validity, internal consistency (coefficient alpha =.85), and test-retest reliability (Radloff, 1977). Rosenberg Self-Esteem Inventory. The Rosenberg self-esteem inventory is a measure of general self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965). The scale consists of 10 items with a seven-point response format. The scale has good test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and validity, and is commonly used in body image research as an indicator of overall psychological well-being. Satisfaction with Life Scale (SATWL). The SATWL is a measure that assesses general life satisfaction, conceptualized as a stable cognitive judgment of one s life (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). The scale consists of five items with a seven-point response format. The measure has good testretest reliability, internal consistency (coefficient alpha =.87), and validity (Diener et al., 1985; Pavot, Diener, Colvin, & Sandvik, 1991). Somatomorphic Matrix. The somatomorphic matrix is a bi-dimensional computerized body image test that can assess satisfaction and perceptual accuracy 3 with respect to muscularity and body fat (Gruber et al., 1999). The male portion of the test consists of a total of 100 images of men, arranged in a 10 x 10 matrix, representing 10 degrees of adiposity and 10 degrees of muscularity. In support of the measure s validity are data indicating that the 220

7 MALE BODY IMAGE images used correspond to particular FFMIs and body fat percentages (Gruber et al., 1999). In order to answer an item participants scroll through the library of images by using buttons on the screen to either add or subtract muscularity and body fat. When a participant alters muscularity or body fat, a different figure from the image library is selected. Once a participant has finalized his selection, the computer records the location of the figure within the matrix. When satisfaction is being looked at for the sample, the mean difference in ratings of self and ideal is examined. Hypothetically, if the mean of self-ratings is, and it was, the figure with the most body fat and least muscularity, the value in the matrix would be 10,1. If the mean of ideal-ratings was the figure with the least body fat and most muscularity, its value in the matrix would be 1,10. Dissatisfaction for body fat and muscularity in this sample would be nine units for each facet of appearance. Thompson and Altabe (1991) used the following wording for the cognitive item: choose the figure that reflects how you think you look (p. 616); and for the affective item: choose the figure that reflects how you feel most of the time (p. 616). In the present study participants responded to a cognitive item: Please choose the image that you THINK most closely resembles your own body; and an affective item: Please choose the image that you FEEL most closely resembles your own body. Participants responded to an ideal item as well: Please choose the image that represents the body that you ideally would like to have. ANALYSES One-way repeated measure ANOVAs were performed on the mean ratings (think, feel, ideal) separately for muscularity and body fat. Planned comparisons were paired t-tests with alpha levels corrected using Holm s sequential Bonferroni procedure. 4 Correlations between think and feel ratings were also computed separately for body fat and muscularity to further examine the hypothesized disparity between cognitive and affective domains. The percentage of body fat dissatisfaction and pound amount of muscle dissatisfaction were determined based on equations given elsewhere (Gruber et al., 1999; Kouri et al., 1995). Correlations assessed the relationship between body dissatisfaction and psychological functioning using a standard Bonferroni adjustment (.008 alpha level) to correct for multiple comparisons. 221

8 CAFRI et al. RESULTS In order to examine whether there were overall differences between the mean ratings (think, feel, ideal) for muscularity and body fat, two one-way repeated measures ANOVAs were used (see Table 1 for mean values and standard deviations). Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were utilized because of moderate violations of the sphericity assumption. 5 For the ANOVA on the muscularity items, the estimated epsilon value was.85, and for the ANOVA on the body fat items, the epsilon estimate was.73. There was a significant effect for muscularity, F (1.71, ) = 72.55, MSE = 52.96, and for body fat, F (1.46, 86.00) = 5.681, MSE = Table 1 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Items Rated on the Somatomorphic Matrix Items Means Standard Deviations Think muscularity Think body fat Feel muscularity Feel body fat Ideal muscularity Ideal body fat In order to determine where the mean differences exist among the three ratings, paired t-tests with alpha levels adjusted using Holm s sequential Bonferroni procedure were used. For the muscularity ratings there was a significant think-ideal discrepancy, t (59) = 9.52, p <.0167, and feel-ideal discrepancy, t (59) = 9.49, p <.025, but no significant difference between feel and think ratings, t (59) =.97. For body fat, the results were the same: a significant discrepancy for feel-ideal, t (59) = 2.69, p <.0167, and think-ideal, t (59) = 2.37, p <.025, yet no difference between feel and think ratings, t (59) =.71. To further examine the differences between think and feel ratings, correlations between the two ratings were looked at for muscularity and body fat. For muscularity the correlation between the think and feel ratings was r (60) 222

9 MALE BODY IMAGE =.89, p <.05. For body fat the correlation was the same, r (60) =.89, p <.05. Because the data indicated that the think and feel items were virtually identical for both muscularity and body fat, the think rating was used in subsequent analyses. This analysis is now equivalent to previous analyses using the somatomorphic matrix, in which the mean difference between a self-rating and ideal-rating is looked at. In order to determine the practical significance of mean dissatisfaction for this sample, pound amount of muscle disparity was calculated, as was the discrepancy for body fat percentage. Negative scores for muscularity and body fat indicate wanting more of an attribute, while positive scores indicate wanting less. The average discrepancy for muscularity was -2.0 FFMI (SD = 1.63). The pound amount of additional muscle desired was determined by using the following FFMI equation (Kouri et al., 1995): FFMI = fat-free mass x height -2 (since the heights of participants were not recorded, the height value used was that of the average American man, 1.76m). For a male of average height, the discrepancy for muscularity was comparable to desiring pounds of additional muscle. The average discrepancy for body fat was.50 units (SD = 1.63). Since each unit represents a difference of 4% body fat (Gruber et al., 1999), this discrepancy was equivalent to desiring 2% less body fat. Examination of the difference between self and ideal ratings for each participant indicated that a significant portion selected ideal bodies with more body fat than they perceived their own bodies to have. This suggested that we should report descriptive statistics separately for those who wanted more body fat and those who wanted less, since reporting values for all participants together would distort the true picture of body fat dissatisfaction in our sample. When the discrepancy for body fat took into account bi-directionality (i.e., wanting more or less body fat), the average discrepancy for wanting less body fat was much higher, 2 units (SD = 1.04). This amounted to desiring 8% less body fat. The average discrepancy for wanting more body fat was 1.33 units (SD =.49), which translates to 5.33%. We found it strange that some participants were dissatisfied with their body fat, such that they wanted more instead of less. This is surprising because body fat is degraded in American society (Bordo, 1992). We speculated that the reason some participants desired more body fat was based on the salience of having large body sizes for males (Bordo, 1995). If this hypothesis was true, we expected that the desire for more muscularity (i.e. muscle dissatisfaction) would be found among a significant portion of the participants who desired more body fat, since increasing muscle size is a 223

10 CAFRI et al. more socially desirable way to increase body size for males (Bordo, 1999). Muscle dissatisfaction and body fat dissatisfaction were categorized for each participant in the sample (more, less, satisfied). Eighteen of the 60 participants (30%) wanted more body fat, with 17 of the 18 wanting more muscularity. A binomial test indicated that among those who wanted more body fat a significant number wanted more muscularity, observed proportion =.94, p <.001, rather than the alternative, wanting less muscularity or being satisfied. Correlations with alpha levels adjusted using a Bonferroni correction were used to assess the relationship between body dissatisfaction and psychological functioning. These analyses indicated that higher discrepancies on muscularity were related to unfavorable psychological functioning (see Table 2). Muscle discrepancy was positively correlated with depressive symptoms (r =.44), and negatively correlated with satisfaction with life (r = -.45) and self-esteem (r = -.51). These findings suggest higher symptoms of depression, lower satisfaction with life, and lower self-esteem with increasing muscle dissatisfaction. Absolute value for self-ideal body fat discrepancy was not significantly correlated with any of the measures of psychological functioning. Table 2 Correlations Between Body Satisfaction and Psychological Functioning Think/ideal discrepancy for muscularity Absolute think/ideal discrepancy for body fat CESD.44* -.12 Rosenberg -.51*.24 SATWL -.45*.26 * Correlation is significant at the.008 alpha level (two-tailed). DISCUSSION This study assessed body image satisfaction and its relationship to psychological functioning. Significant muscle dissatisfaction was found within the expected range. On the somatomorphic matrix the dissatisfaction for muscularity was equated with desiring approximately 15 pounds of muscle. The level of muscle dissatisfaction was equivalent to levels found in American 224

11 MALE BODY IMAGE gym-using men (Gruber et al., 1999), but lower than a college-aged population of Austrian, French, and American men (Pope, Gruber, et al., 2000). Therefore, the current data support emerging evidence from other laboratories that significant muscle dissatisfaction exists among males. An unforeseen finding was the high degree of body fat dissatisfaction, and completely unexpected was the bi-directionality of this dissatisfaction. Eight percent body fat dissatisfaction was found among participants who wanted less body fat, and 5.33% body fat dissatisfaction was found for those who wanted more body fat. It is difficult to compare the findings for body fat dissatisfaction in this study with previous work because some participants wanted more body fat in this study, a finding that has not been reported in the past. Our findings indicate the importance of dichotomizing participants on the variable of desired body fat level. Why do some men desire more body fat? The answer may be found in the salience of having larger body sizes for some men. Although body fat is not considered a favored aspect of body composition, it can function, like muscularity, to increase body size. As such, some men may desire to increase body size by increasing their body fat. The fact that, with one exception, all participants who wanted more body fat also wanted more muscularity, shows that desire for more body fat is essentially coexistent with desire for more muscularity. This supports the notion that desiring more body fat is congruent with the goal of increasing body size. The findings of this study in part support the prediction that greater body dissatisfaction would be related to lower degrees of psychological functioning. Muscle dissatisfaction was significantly associated with increased symptoms of depression, lower self-esteem, and less satisfaction with life. This is consistent with the findings of McCreary and Sasse (2000), who found that attitudes and behaviors related to dissatisfaction with a muscular appearance were significantly associated with increased symptoms of depression and decreased self-esteem. These findings also fit well with those of Tantleff- Dunn and Thompson (2000), who found that men s dissatisfaction with upper torso muscularity was significantly associated with lower self-esteem. Importantly, the findings of this study suggest that body fat dissatisfaction was weakly associated with psychological functioning. Data from the somatomorphic did not support the hypothesis that there were separate cognitive and affective domains for perceiving one s body. The finding of this study contrasts with those of past studies, which found a difference (Thompson & Altabe, 1991; Thompson & Psaltis, 1988). A few explanations can account for this disparity. The data suggest that the wording 225

12 CAFRI et al. manipulation in this study was not strong enough to elicit the differences we were seeking. Specifically, our affective item was different than what has traditionally been used by Thompson and colleagues (see the methods section for a comparison). However, in the present study we also piloted a paper and pencil modification of the somatomorphic matrix, using the same wording of items, and found a statistically significant difference between think and feel ratings for body fat but not muscularity. 6 Data from the modification indicated that participants felt fatter than they thought they looked, but more importantly it suggested that participants were able to discriminate between the wordings of the think and feel items. The disparity in findings between the somatomorphic matrix and its modification can be accounted for by the contrasting method of measurement. While there are a number of appearance differences in the two types of measurements, we feel that the primary reason why the modification yielded significant differences for the think/feel items is the ability of participants to record their selections and compare the rating they gave for the feel item with the one they gave for the think item, or vice versa. This is not a feature available on the somatomorphic matrix and is probably another reason why statistically significant effects were not found. This study indicates numerous other directions male body image research could take. For example, it would be interesting to examine how perceptual accuracy on the somatomorphic matrix relates to psychological functioning. Such a study is particularly important in light of recent data indicating that being an underweight male may increase the likelihood of adverse physical and mental health, specifically including increased depression, suicide ideation, and suicide attempts (Carpenter, Hasin, Allison, & Faith, 2000; McCreary & Sadava, 2001). Further study of male body image may consider the development of questionnaires that assess domains of behavior that are caused by a muscular body image. For instance, there is a necessity for a questionnaire that assesses eating patterns premised on increasing muscle size and limiting body fat gains. Undoubtedly, the present study possessed several limitations. First, since the somatomorphic matrix is such a novel measure of body image, it lacks data pertaining to its psychometric properties (e.g., test-retest reliability). Second, the sample was overwhelmingly Caucasian and heterosexual, which limits our ability to generalize the findings to other male populations. Certainly, the current findings also are in need of replication in a larger sample. Male body image has been an under-researched phenomenon in psychology. This has been the case for the domains that consider attitudes and behaviors regarding appearance of muscularity and body fat, as well as other 226

13 MALE BODY IMAGE aspects of appearance, such as body hair (Boroughs & Thompson, 2001). It is time to abandon the pre-conceived notion that men are not dissatisfied with their bodies, particularly since there is surmounting empirical evidence to the contrary. The finding of this study that how men think about their muscularity is not merely an epiphenomenon, but relevant to psychological functioning and hence self-concept, adds to the importance of conducting male body image research. NOTES 1. More explicitly, male bodies are comprised of a combination of both muscularity and body fat. By asking participants to rate the body they perceive to be their own on a body fat scale for instance, a participant is being asked to imagine what his body fat would look like if it had the muscularity of the figures on the scale. Conceptually this seems to be a difficult task. Empirical evidence is needed to confirm whether people, males specifically, make inaccurate responses for this reason. 2. The construct of body image has generally been divided into two dimensions: subjective/attitudinal and perceptual (Thompson, 1990). In the last several years, there has been strong evidence suggesting that there may not be a clear distinction between subjective and perceptual body image (for a review, see Thompson et al., 1999). In short, it was once thought that subjective assessment measured one s thoughts or feelings, while perceptual assessment measured the visual and neurological facets of perception, with little overlap between the two (e.g., Heinberg, 1996). Through implementing methods of perceptual assessment that evaluate only sensory factors (i.e., signal detection methodology that measures variables related exclusively to the visual system), researchers have concluded that perceptual inaccuracy with respect to one s body size is not attributable to sensory factors, but rather non-sensory factors (Thompson & Gardner, in press). Non-sensory factors constitute thoughts and feelings, characteristics related to the subjective domain of body image. Thus, traditional perceptual assessment taps both perceptual and subjective domains of body image, with perceptual inaccuracy resulting from subjective factors. 3. Since each figure in the matrix corresponds to a particular FFMI and body fat percentage, the measure can be a perceptual index if a self-rating is compared to a person s actual body composition values. Although we describe this procedure as perceptual, such a measure would likely be tap- 227

14 CAFRI et al. ping both perceptual and subjective domains of body image (see note 1). 4. The intention of this correction procedure is to reduce the family-wise error rate with maximization of power. The corresponding alpha level is determined by the p-value of the resulting comparison. The pair with the highest or least significant p-value has an alpha =.05. The pair with the second highest p-value has alpha =.025 (.05/2). The pair with the third highest p-value has alpha =.0167 (.05/3). 5. The data did not indicate that there were significant violations of the normality assumption. Moreover, we appear to have met the independence assumption based on the design of the experiment. 6. The modification has 34 figures, which were reduced in size and transposed from the original onto a two by three foot poster board. The figures were organized in a matrix with adiposity and muscularity on two separate axes. The measure was constructed in such a way that would allow for responses to cover the same domain as the 100 figures found in the somatomorphic matrix by having every third figure in the image library of the somatomorphic matrix appear on the modification, starting from the one with the least body fat and most muscularity. On a separate sheet of paper, participants responded to the three items previously described by recording the numbers for muscularity and body fat that correspond to the figure they selected to answer the question. While correlations between the think and feel items were high for muscularity, r (60) =.98, p <.05, and body fat, r (60) =.97, p <.05, significant mean differences emerged for the body fat ratings. Feel ratings for body fat on the modification (M = 39.17, SD = 21.07) were significantly higher than the think ratings (M = 37.12, SD = 22.43), t (59) = 2.72, p <.05. REFERENCES Altabe, M. N., & Thompson, J. K. (1992). Size estimation vs. figural ratings of body image disturbance: Relation to body dissatisfaction and eating dysfunction. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 11, Berscheid, E., Walster, E., & Bohrnsedt, G. (1973, November). The happy American body: A survey report. Psychology Today, Bordo, S. (1993). Unbearable weight: Feminism, western culture, and the body. Berkeley: University of California Press. 228

15 MALE BODY IMAGE Bordo, S. (1995). Reading the slender body. In N. Tuana & R. Tong (Eds.) Feminism and philosophy (pp ). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Bordo, S. (1999). The male body: A new look at men in public and in private. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Boroughs, M. S., & Thompson, J. K. (2001, August). Body depilation in male athletes: a new form of body image concern? American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA. Carpenter, K. M., Hasin, D. S., Allison, D. B., & Faith, M. S. (2000). Relationships between obesity and DSM-IV major depressive disorder, suicide ideation, and suicide attempts: Results from a general population study. The American Journal of Public Health, 90, Cash, T., Winstead, B., & Janada L. (1986). The great American shape-up. Psychology Today, Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, Collins, M. E. (1991). Body figure perception and preferences among preadolescent children. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 10, Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, Gardner, R. M., Friedman, B. N., Jackson, N. A. (1998). Methodological concerns when using silhouettes to measure body image. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, Garner, D.M. (1997). The 1997 body image survey results. Psychology Today, 30, Gruber, A. J., Pope, H. G., Jr., Borowiecki, J., & Cohane, G. (1999). The development of the somatomorphic matrix: A bi-axial instrument for measuring body image in men and women. In T. S. Olds, J. Dollman, J., & K. I. Norton (Eds.), Kinanthropometry VI. Sydney: International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry. Heinberg, L. J (1996). Theories of body image disturbance: Perceptual, developmental, and sociocultural factors. In J. K. Thompson (Ed.), Body Image, eating disorders, and obesity: An integrative for assessment and treatment (pp ). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 229

16 CAFRI et al. Kouri, E., Pope, H. G., Jr., Katz, D., & Olivardia, R. (1995). Fat-free mass index in users and nonusers of anabolic-androgenic steroids. Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine, 5, [Kouri s first initial needed] Leit, R. A., Pope, H. G., Jr., & Gray, J. J. (in press). Cultural expectations of masculinity in men: The evolution of Playgirl centerfolds. International Journal of Eating Disorders. Lynch, S. M., & Zellner, D. A. (1999). Figure preferences in two generations of men: The use of figure drawings illustrating differences in muscle mass. Sex Roles, 40, McCreary, D. R., & Sadava, S. W. (2001). Gender differences in relationships among perceived attractiveness, life satisfaction, and health in adults as a function of body mass index and perceived weight. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 2, McCreary, D. R., & Sasse, D. K. (2000). An exploration of the drive for muscularity in adolescent boys and girls. Journal of American College Health, 48, Pavot, W., Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., Sandvick, E. (1991). Further validation of the satisfaction with life scale: Evidence for the cross-method convergence of psychological functioning measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, Pope, H. G., Jr., Gruber, A., Choi, P., Olivardia, R., & Phillips, K. (1997). An underrecognized form of body dysmorphic disorder. Psychosomatics, 38, Pope, H. G., Jr., Gruber, A., Magweth, B., Bureau, B., decol, C., Jovent, R., & Hudson, J. I. (2000). Body image perception among men in three countries. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, Pope, H. G., Jr., Katz, D., & Hudson, J. (1993). Anorexia nervosa and reverse anorexia among 108 male bodybuilders. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 34, Pope, H. G., Jr., Phillips, K. A., & Olivardia, R. (2000). The Adonis complex: The secret crisis of male body obsession. The Free Press: New York. Pope, H. G., Jr., Olivardia, R., Gruber, A., & Borowiecki, J. (1999). Evolving ideals of male body image as seen through action toys. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 26,

17 MALE BODY IMAGE Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Stunkard, A. J., Sorensen, T., & Schulsinger, F. (1983). Use of the Danish adoption registrar for the study of obesity and thinness. In S. S. Kety, L. P. Rowland, R. L. Sidman, & S. W. Matthysse (Eds.), The genetics of neurological and psychiatric disorder (pp ). New York: Raven Press. Tantleff-Dunn, S., & Thompson, J. K. (2000). Breast and chest size satisfaction: Relation to overall body satisfaction and self-esteem. Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment and Prevention, 8, Thompson, J. K., & Gardner, D. M. (in press). Measuring perceptual body image among adolescents and adults. In T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Handbook of body images. New York: Guilford. Thompson, J. K. (1990). Body image disturbance: Assessment and treatment. New York; Pergamon Press. Thompson, J. K., & Altabe, M. N. (1991). Psychometric qualities of the figure rating scale. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 10, Thompson, J. K., Heinberg, L., Altabe, M., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (1999). Exacting beauty: Theory, assessment and treatment of body image disturbance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Thompson, J. K., & Psaltis, K. (1988). Multiple aspects and correlates of body figure ratings: A replication and extension of Fallon and Rozin (1985). International Journal of Eating Disorders, 7, Thompson, J. K., & Tantleff, S., (1992). Female and male ratings of upper torso: actual, ideal, and stereotypical conceptions. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, Thompson, M. A., & Gray, J. J. (1995). Development and validation of a new body image assessment scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64,