Assessment of Socially Acceptable Body Sizes by University Students

Assessment of Socially Acceptable Body Sizes by University Students Colleen S. W. Rand, * Jaquelyn L. Resnick, f- Roberta S. Seldmang Abstract RAND, COLLEEN SW, JAQUELYN L RESNICK, ROBERTA S SELDMAN. Assessment of socially acceptable body sizes by university students. Ubes Res. 1997;5:425-429. The objective of this study was to determine if more than one body size (the ideal) is considered socially acceptable. Two hundred undergraduates rated ideal male and female sizes, all socially acceptable male and female sizes, and their own current and desired sizes. Stimuli were arrays of nine outline drawings illustrating extremely thin to very fat male and female sizes. Most students considered three of nine sizes socially acceptable. There was high consensus on the sizes considered ideal. Although nearly three-quarters of women and half of men desired to be a different size, most considered their current size socially acceptable for other people. The results clearly demonstrate the existence of a range of socially acceptable male and female body sizes. The current size of most students was within this range. Exclusive focus on ideal body size distorts understanding of both other-size and own-size evaluations. Key words: body image, ideal body size, self-evaluation, size concerns Introduction There is very little known about the range of body sizes that is considered socially acceptable. Socially acceptable body sizes are those that are considered neither too thin nor too heavy. Socially acceptable sizes include the ideal body size and sizes considered attractive although not ideal and may include sizes considered neither attractive nor unattractive. Submitted for publication September 10, 1996. Accepted for publication April 11, 1997. From the *Department of Psychiatry,?University Counseling Center, and $Student Health, University of Florida, Gainesville, F'L. Reprint requests to Colleen S.W. Rand, Department of Psychiatly, Box 100256, JHMHC, University of Florida Gainesville, FL Copyright 0 1997 NAASO. No study has examined the range of socially acceptable sizes. An extrapolation about sizes considered socially acceptable can be made from ratings of male and female sizes of varying heaviness. Sizes within the normal range are rated more attractive than extremely thin or heavy figures (7-9). The range of ideal body sizes has been examined in the context of cross-cultural variations in ideal body size (5). Body size research has focused on ideal body size. There is considerable cultural consensus on ideal body size (12). The focus on ideal body size rather than on a range of acceptable body sizes has contributed to a literature that emphasizes female body size dissatisfactions. For example, when arrays of figures are presented, the ideal vs. actual sizes of women are consistently more discrepant than those of men (3,6,13,19). This discrepancy becomes clinically significant for people with body image disturbances, who tend to equate not being ideal with being completely unacceptable (2). This study examines the evaluation of body sizes by university students to determine if there are sizes in addition to an ideal size that are considered socially acceptable. It also compares the current size of students with the sizes that they consider socially acceptable. University students are pertinent subjects because issues of self-evaluation and identity formation place them at high risk for eating disorders. Methods and Procedures Two hundred students (134 women) enrolled in an introductory psychology course at a large university volunteered for the study in partial fulfillment of course requirements. There were two sets of nine outline drawings, one each of men and women, representing body sizes ranging from extremely thin to extremely heavy (Figure 1). The figures of Collins (3) were modified with permission; two heavier figures (#8 and #9) were added to make the set comparable to the original set developed by Sorensen et al. (14). Validity of outline drawings is considered good (1,17). OBESITY RESEARCH Vol. 5 No. 5 Sept. 1997 425

Figure 1: Outline drawings of male and female figures. Two-week test-retest correlations among university students for current size were 0.89 for women and 0.92 for men and of desired size were 0.71 for women and 0.82 for men (17). One-week test-retest reliability of the judgments of 7 1 high school subjects on the other measures was determined for this study. The consistency in judgments of socially acceptability averaged 93 -t 8% (mean +- SD) for women (n = 52) and 93 f 7% for men (n= 19). For female subjects, there was agreement of 94% or higher on both male and female sizes #1, #3, #4, #7, #8, and #9. There was less than 85% agreement on male sizes #2 (84%) and #6 (73%) and female size #2 (83%). The Spearman correlations of total acceptable sizes were 0.65 for male sizes and 0.68 for female sizes. For male subjects, there was agreement of 94% or higher on male sizes #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #8, and #9 and female sizes #1, #4, #8, and #9. There was less than 85% agreement on male size #6 (78%) and female sizes #5 (83%) and #6 (83%). The Spearman correlations of total acceptable sizes were 0.83 for male sizes and 0.84 for female sizes. Test-retest agreement on most attractive male size was 92% for women and 84% for men. For most attractive female size, it was 83% for women and 79% for men. All subjects who did not select the same size chose a size adjacent to the originally selected size on retesting. Background information included demographic data, weight, and height. Weights are reported as body mass index (BMI; weight in kilograms divided by height in square meters). Socioeconomic status (SES) class was estimated by use of the Hollingshead-Redlich index (1 1). Highlmiddle SES included social class positions I, 11, and III. The body size survey was part of a larger collaborative study. Informed consent was obtained for the entire project. Subjects recorded the number of the size that they thought most resembled their current body size and of the size they would most like to resemble (16). They then selected the most attractive male and female size and indicated all sizes that they considered socially acceptable. Specifically, subjects were instructed, If you saw people with these sizes on campus, at the mall, or on the beach, what sizes would you think looked o.k.? Male and female sizes were analyzed separately. Numbers referring to each size were analyzed nonparametrically. The total number of socially acceptable sizes was analyzed parametrically. To determine the satisfaction of subjects with their own body size, current size was compared with desired size and coded just right (current equaled desired size), too big (current greater than desired size), or too little (current less than desired size). Data were analyzed with SAS 6.04 (Cary, NC). The 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were determined from previously determined formulae (10). The Bonferroni correction was used to adjust significance levels within each group of tests. The 95% CI, statistic, and Bonferroni significance level are footnoted. Data are reported as mean f standard deviation. Results Students were 19 * 2 years old, were predominantly white (71% white, 10% African-American, 8.5% Hispanic, 7.5% Asian-American, 3% other), were single (99%) and were of middlehigh SES (91.1%). The racial distribution was remarkably similar to that of the total undergraduate population, whereas the proportion of male-to-female subjects (66: 134) reflected the greater concentration of women in social sciences. weighed significantly more than women (BMI of 23.7 +- 2.7 kg compared with 20.7 f 2.5 kg, 426 OBESITY RESEARCH Vol. 5 No. 5 Sept. 1997

Table 1. Male and female sizes considered socially acceptable and most attractive by men and women Percentage of subjects rating each body size Size #1 #2* #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 Male Socially Acceptable Most Attractive Female Socially Acceptable Most Attractive 6.1 47.0 0.8 20.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 10.6 48.5 3.0 38.8 0.0 4.6 0.0 8.2 98.5 97.0 16.7 11.9 100.0 98.5 54.6 60.4 100.0 83.3 24.2 7.6 0.0 0.0 99.2 77.6 25.4 4.5 2.2 0.8 83.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.8 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 98.5 62.1 16.7 7.6 0.0 0.0 97.0 57.5 18.7 4.5 2.2 0.8 40.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Note: The Bonferroni correction results in a value of p = 0.05/18 = 0.003 for differences between men and women. *The difference between the rating of acceptable male size #2 by men and women is significant; x2= 15.449, df= 1, p<o.ool. The 95% CI for a 27% difference is 13% to 41%. p<o.ool).' The National Center for Health Statistics defines being overweight as a BMI of at least 27.8 for men and 27.3 for women (18). By these criteria, 1% (n = 1) of women and 6% (n = 4) of men in the student sample were overweight. Table 1 presents the percentage of men and women who rated each size socially acceptable. A majority of subjects considered three slender-to-average sizes, #3, #4, and #5, socially acceptable for both men and women. The thin size #2 and plump size #6 were approved by 18% to 40% of students. Very few students approved either the thinnest size (#1) or the three largest sizes (#7 to #9). and women agreed on all ratings except male size #2. Reflecting this difference, the total number of male sizes considered socially acceptable by men (3.7 f 1.1) was slightly greater than that by women (3.3 f 1.0; p<o.ol).* The total number of female sizes considered socially acceptable by men (3.4 rf: 1.0) and women (3.2 rf: 1.0) was statistically comparable. and women also agreed in their selection of ideal size: most chose #4 as the most attractive male size and #3 or #4 as the most attractive female size. 'f =5.846, df= 198.0, p<o.o01. Bonferroni correction results in a value of p=0.05/ 3 =0.02. The difference in current BMI between men and women is 2.3; the 95% CI is 1.5 to 3.1. 'f = 2.576, df= 198, p<o.ol. Bonferroni correction results in a value of p = 0.05/ 2 = 0.025. The 95% CI for a 0.4 difference between men and women in total acceptable male sizes is 0.1 to 0.7. To determine the effect of weight on judgments, Bh4I values of subjects who did and did not rate each size acceptable were compared, by subject gender. No analysis was significant. Correlations between the BMI of men, the BMI of women, the total number of acceptable men sizes, and the total number of acceptable women sizes were also not ~ignificant.~ More men than women were content with their current size (41% compared with 24%) or considered their current size too small (38% compared with 10%); fewer considered their own size too big (21% compared with 66%; pco.ool)? The current size of subjects was compared with the sizes that they considered to be socially acceptable for other people. Although only 29.5% of all students considered their current size just right, 85% of women and 95% of men rated their current size as being socially acceptable for other people (the difference between women and men was significant, ~<0.03~). 'The Bonferroni correction for effect of weight on judgments, determined by f-tests, wasp = 0.05/18 = 0.003. The correction for the effect determined by correlations was p = 0.05/4 = 0.01. 4x 2 = 40.372, df= 2, pco.001. Paired comparisons: just right vs. too big, x2 = 20.538, df= 1, p<o.ooi; the 95% CI for a 39% difference between men and women is 23% to 56%. Just right vs. too small, not significant. Too big vs. too small, x2=42.870, df= 1, ~4.001; the 95% CI for a 57% difference between men and women is 40% to 70%. Bonferroni correction results in a value of p = 0.05/3 = 0.02. 5x2=4.681, df=l, pc0.03. The 95% CI for a 10% difference between men and women is 3% to 18%. OBESITY RESEARCH Vol. 5 No. 5 Sept. 1997 427

Discussion The main purpose of this study was to determine if there were body sizes that students considered socially acceptable in addition to the size that they considered ideal. The results clearly demonstrated the existence of a range of socially acceptable body sizes. Most students in this study considered three sizes to be socially acceptable. In addition to sizes in the slender-to-average size range, a fifth or more of students approved of a thin and a moderately plump size. The thinnest and three heaviest male and female sizes were not considered to be socially acceptable. There are no data on the evaluation of body size by adults. It is possible that adults might be more accepting of size variations than students. Although investigating different questions, this study confiis the results reported by Furnham and Radley (9). Both studies found that more than a single ideal size was rated positively and that slender-to-average sizes were rated more positively than very thin or heavier sizes. and women were in remarkable agreement on the range of sizes that they considered socially acceptable. Although men found slightly more male sizes acceptable than women, there were no gender differences in socially acceptable female sizes. and women also agreed on the sizes that they considered most attractive. It would have been understandable if students who were heavy or underweight were more accepting, respectively, of heavy or thin sizes than other students. However, there were no differences in size ratings between these and other students. Students participating in this study were more slender than most young adults (18). Despite the low prevalence of actual obesity, the majority of women wanted to be thinner-a ubiquitous preference (15). Over half of men were also dissatisfied with their current size, but more wanted to be larger than thinner (4). Supporting results from other studies, significantly more women than men considered their current size to be too big (3,6,13,19). However, in spite of personal size dissatisfaction, large majorities of both genders of students considered their own current size socially acceptable for other people. The documentation of pervasive body size dissatisfactions of both men and women, but especially women, does not minimize its psychological effect. We know that the discrepancy between ideal and real body size is a factor in low self-esteem. In the case of clients already in treatment for eating disorders or weight loss, the issue of the more restrictive size standards for self than for others can be integrated into therapy. As the double standard for body size wanes, greater self-esteem and more realistic size goals may develop. It is important to conceptualize the domain of body size as containing more elements than just ideal body size. The range of socially acceptable sizes is analogous to the range of normal intelligence or economic self-sufficiency. Entities representing high achievement are important, hence, the study of ideal size, genius, and wealth. However, a distorted understanding of a domain can result if attributes pertaining to high achievement form the basis for the characterization of the whole domain. In the case of body size, the emphasis on own vs. ideal size discrepancies has produced a large literature on negative body size evaluations by women. A somewhat different impression is obtained when acceptable sizes are examined in addition to ideal sizes. This study found, like many other studies, that a minority of women (and men) consider their own size ideal. However, this study also discovered a positive aspect of body size evaluation: the current body size of most women and men is within the range of body sizes that they consider socially acceptable. References 1. Ben-Tovim DI, Walker MK. s body attitudes: A review of measurement techniques. Int J Eating Disord. 1991; 10: 155-167. 2. Cash TF. Treatment of body image disturbances. In: Thompson JK, ed. Body Image, Eating Disorders, and Obesity. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1996;83-107. 3. Collins ME. Body figure perceptions and preferences among preadolescent children. Int J Eating Disord. 1991; 10199-208. 4. Drwenowski A, Lee DK. and body image: Are males satisfied with their body weight? Psychosom Med. 1987;49: 626-634. 5. Fallon A. Culture in the mirror: sociocultural determinants of body image. In: Cash TF, Pruzinsky T, eds. Body Images, Development, Deviance and Change. London: Guilford Press; 1990;8&109. 6. Fallon AE, Rozin P. Sex differences in perceptions of desirable body shape. J Abnorm Psychol. 1985;94:102-105. 7. Furnham A, Alibhai N. Cross-cultural differences in the perception of female body shapes. Psychol Med. 1983;13: 829-837. 8. Furnham A, Baguma P. Cross-cultural differences in the evaluation of male and female body shapes. Int J Eating Disord. 1994; 15:81-89. 9. Furnham A, Radley S. Sex differences in the perception of male and female body shapes. Personality Individ Di$ 1989; 10:653-662. 10. Gardner MJ, Altman DG, Eds. Statistics with Confidence- Confidence Intervals and Statistical Guidelines. London: British Medical Journal; 1989;2049. 11. Hollingshead AB. Two Factor Index ofsocial Position. New Haven, CT: Yale Station; 1965. 12. Rand CSW, Macgregor AMC. Body size preferences and desired weight of patients who have received obesity surgery and of comparison adults. Obes Res. 1995;3:427434. 13. Rozin P, Fallon A. Body image, attitudes to weight, and misperceptions of figure preferences of the opposite sex: A comparison of men and women in two generations. JAbnorm Psychol. 1988;97:342-345. 428 OBESITY RESEARCH Vol. 5 No. 5 Sept. 1997

14. Sorensen TIA, Stunkard AJ, Teasdale TW, Higgins MW. The accuracy of reports of weight: Children s recall of their parents weights 15 years earlier. Int J Obes. 1983;7:115-122. 15. Striegel-Moore RH, Silberstein LR, Rodin J. Toward an understanding of risk factors for bulimia. Am Psychol. 1986; 4 1 : 246-263. 16. Thompson JK. Body shape preferences: Effects of instructional protocol and level of eating disturbance. Int J Eating Disord. 1991 ;lo: 193-198. 17. Thompson JK, Altabe MN. Psychometric qualities of the Figure Rating Scale. Int J Eating Disord. 1991;lO: 615-6 19. 18. Williamson DF. Descriptive epidemiology of body weight and weight change in U.S. adults. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119: 646-649. 19. Zellner DA, Harner DE, Adler RL. Effects of eating abnormalities and gender on perceptions of desirable body shape. J Am Psychol. 1989;98:93-96. OBESITY RESEARCH Vol. 5 No. 5 Sept. 1997 429