Body Esteem: An Exception to Self-Enhancing Illusions?1

Body Esteem: An Exception to Self-Enhancing Illusions?l

JACK L. POWELL? MALA L. MATACIN, AND ANNE E. STUART University of Harrjbrd

Participants were 192 university students (96 males, 96 females) who completed the Body Esteem scale (Franzoi & Shields, 15184) under instructions to rate their feelings about their own bodies, rate their feelings about a specific or “average” student’s body, and rate the importance they and others attached to these feelings. One of the findings is that when individuals perceived themselves a; less positive on a particular desirable physical trait, they also rated the trait as less impoitant to possess in the first place. The only exception to this was women’s weight concern. [t was also found that men generally rated themselves higher on body-esteem subscales than they rated other men, while women did not exhibit such self-serving evaluations of their bodies. One implication from these results is that the same self-enhancement strategies s~uccessfi~lly employed by individuals in other areas of self-evaluations were not successfu 1 in enhancing one’s body esteem, especially women’s weight concern.

How can the following two statements both be true?

Individuals typically distort their perceptions of themselves or the world around them to feel unrealistically and unjustifiably good about their abilities, talents, social skills, relationships, and future.

Individuals typically distort their perceptions of themselves or the world around them to fe:el unrealistically and unjustifiably bad about their bodies.

Although the two statements; seem contradictory, they are both well-estab- lished research findings from the psychological literature.

The distortion described in the first statement refers to a number of related phenomena with various labels (i:.g., self-serving bias, the above-average effect, unrealistically positive views of the self) that we title here more generally sev- enhancing illusions. The second statement is a more specific phenomenon that

’Portions of this article were presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC, May 1997.

2Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jack Powell, Department of Psy- chology, University of Hartford, West Hartford, CT 06 117. e-mail: jpowell@mail.hartford.edu

1951

Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 2001, 31, 9, pp. 1951-1978. Copyright 0 2001 by V. H. Winston 8 Son, Inc. All rights reserved.

1952 POWELL ET AL.

also goes by various labels, but which we will refer to as body-image distortion. What the two statements have in common is their reference to individuals’ inac- curate views of one or more aspects of the self. One important way in which the two statements differ is that the former often has been found to be associated with positive aspects of mental health, whereas the latter is associated with problems in psychological adjustment.

The purpose of the present study is to examine the literatures behind both state- ments in an effort to find connections. Generally, it is hoped that we can learn more about body-image distortion and its negative effects on psychological func- tioning by borrowing and applying some of the methods and constructs from the research on self-enhancing illusions. More specifically, we would like to learn why the strategies typically used by individuals to maintain self-enhancing illusions are seemingly abandoned or are inadequate for maintaining a realistic body image.

Self-Enhancing Illusions

Most people evaluate themselves with a somewhat exaggerated impression of their actual abilities, talents, and social skills. Among the many examples that have been demonstrated by researchers are the following: the majority of drivers consider themselves to be above-average drivers (Svenson, 198 1); the vast major- ity of college professors say they do above-average work (Cross, 1977); people believe that they perform fewer health-threatening behaviors than does their aver- age peer (Perloff & Fetzer, 1986); and college students judge positive personality traits to be more descriptive of themselves (but negative personality traits as less descriptive of themselves) than of the average student (Alicke, 1985).

In a related vein, individuals have demonstrated exaggerated perceptions of personal control over random events (Langer, 1975; Langer & Roth, 1975); illu- sory or overly idealistic images of their relationships (Murray & Holmes, 1997); a belief that they are more likely than are their peers to experience positive events in the future (Regan, Snyder, & Kassin, 1995; Weinstein, 1980); and a belief that they are less likely to experience various negative events (Hoorens & Buunk, 1993; Perloff & Fetzer, 1986; Regan et al., 1995; Robertson, 1977; Weinstein, 1980). This motive to enhance the positivity of one’s self-conceptions or to pro- tect the self from unfavorable information has been found to be more powerful than even the motive to be accurate or to verify one’s present self-conceptions (Sedikides, 1993).

There appears to be a good reason for individuals to establish and maintain these illusions. Beginning with Taylor and Brown (1988), a number of research- ers have proposed that self-serving illusions actually foster mental health, and this viewpoint is strongly supported by the consistent finding that those individuals who fail to exhibit self-serving tendencies are more likely to have low self-esteem (Brown, 1986; Campbell & Fairey, 1985) or varying levels of

BODY ESTEEM 1953

depression (Abramson & Alloy, 198 1 ; Coyne & Gotlib, 1983; Golin, Terrell, & Johnson, 1977; Golin, Terrell, Weitz, & Drost, 1979; Greenberg, Vasquez, & Alloy, 1988; Kuiper, 1978; Rizlsy, 1978; Ruehlman, West, & Pasahow, 1985). Said in another way, self-enhancing illusions-in the form of overly positive views of the self and of the future, and a belief in one’s ability to control events- are associated with superior psychological functioning in the form of less depres- sion and higher well-being and adjustment (Brown, 1991).

Although there is much evidence supporting the link between illusions and mental health, there is also much debate. One criticism of this view is that although positive illusions may, in fact, provide temporary relief for individuals, there is not sufficient support to assert that these illusions can function as long- term fixes to depression, low self-esteem, or other adjustment problems (Colvin & Block, 1994). And, even if there are some benefits to self-enhancing illusions, they may be outweighed by the costs. Individuals who are overly optimistic about their own skills and abilities may not learn from repeated failures and thus persist at tasks at which they have no chance of succeeding, or, even worse, attempt risky behaviors that a realistic assessment would teach them to avoid.

There is also the problem that the link between illusion and mental health can be oversimplified. The suggestion that normal, happy adults are positively biased and that depressed people are accurate in their self-assessment-sometimes referred to as depressive realism--is certainly not as simple as that (e.g., Forster- ling, Buhner, & Gall, 1998). As Taylor and Brown (1994) point out, it cannot be assumed or inferred that the more illusion the better or that all illusions are good or that illusions are necessary for mental health.

A final interesting note on self-enhancing illusions is the finding that women are less likely to display these illusions than are men (Campbell & Sedikides, 1998; Falbo, Poston, Triscari, & Zhang, 1997; Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, & Norasakkunkit, 1997; Sedikides, Campbell, Reeder, & Elliot, 1998). Sedikides et al. explain this by pointing to literature suggesting that men have higher suc- cess expectancies and higher global self-esteem. Falbo et al. (1997) attribute this gender difference in self-enhancement to women’s tendency to see themselves more in terms of their relationship to others. Thus, women would rate themselves more similarly to others than men would, which would lead to less discrepancy between self-evaluations and evaluations of others. This finding is especially rel- evant to the issue of body esteem, since the next section makes clear that women are much more likely to display body-image distortion than are men.

Body-Image Distortion

As already discussed, it seems that there is a glaring exception to this general tendency toward self-enhancement. Whereas individuals seem to be rating themselves unrealistically high on many personal attributes, there is a large and

1954 POWELL ET AL.

growing body of literature suggesting that individuals, especially women, are very dissatisfied with their bodies. In fact, if there is any illusion, bias, or exag- geration in individuals’ judgments about their bodies, it is that people tend to be negatively biased.

For example, Fallon and Rozin (1 985) found that women perceive their cur- rent figures to be heavier than their ideal. Williamson, Kelley, Davis, Ruiggiero, and Blovin (1985) found that many women, both with and without eating dis- orders, tend to distort their body size, viewing themselves as heavy. Jacobi and Cash (1994) found that both men and women have ideals that are discrepant from their current perceptions of their body. Men want to be taller, heavier, and more muscular, whereas women want to be thinner, lighter, and have larger breasts. A national survey reported by Gamer (1 997) revealed that body dissatisfaction has increased greatly since 1972 for both men and women, and that in women, this self-disparagement is especially directed to weight (in 1997, 66% of women felt dissatisfaction), hips (60%), and stomach (7 IYo). These numbers are certainly consistent with the claim by some researchers that a moderate degree of body dissatisfaction is almost normative among women (Rodin, Silberstein, & Streigel-Moore, 1984).

When self-enhancing illusions were discussed previously, it was suggested that there was a positive function behind such illusions: They were associated with improved mental health. Unfortunately, the body-image distortion being described here is not associated with such positive psychological adjustment, but just the opposite.

Much research evidence suggests a link between poor body image (especially weight concerns) and a variety of negative mental health outcomes. Perhaps most obviously, poor body image has been associated with eating disorders (Dykens & Gerrard, 1986; Garfinkel & Garner, 1982; Johnson & Conners, 1987; Katzman & Wolchik, 1984; Killen, Taylor, Hayward, Haydel, et al., 1996; Killen, Taylor, Hayward, Wilson, et al., 1994; Shisslak, Crago, & Estes, 1995). Additionally, dis- satisfaction with one’s body has been linked to low self-esteem (Berscheid & Walster, 1974; Cash, Winstead, & Janda, 1986; Franzoi & Shields, 1984; Grubb, Sellers, & Waligroski, 1993; Lerner & Karbenick, 1974; Rosen & Ross, 1968; Secord & Jourard, 1953; Striegel-Moore, Silberstein, & Rodin, 1986).

But there is increasing attention being paid to the role of poor body image in the development of depression (Mintz & Betz, 1986; Nolan-Hoeksema & Girgus, 1994; Noles, Cash, & Winstead, 1985; Taylor & Cooper, 1986). This link is par- ticularly important to understand because of the high prevalence rate of depres- sion and the evidence that it is becoming even more prevalent over time (Grant et al., 1999).

Generally speaking, if it is true that self-enhancing illusions are often associ- ated with positive aspects of psychological health, and body-image distortion is associated with negative aspects of psychological health, then the lesson one

BODY ESTEEM 1955

might learn from this is that individuals should take the strategies that allow them to maintain self-enhancing illusions in some areas of their life and apply them to judgments of their bodies. To examine this possibility, we will look at three such strategies from the literature that have been offered as explanations for the main- tenance of self-enhancing illusions, and speculate on their applicability to body- image distortion.

Establishing and Maintaining Positive Illusions

Several researchers (e.g., Brown, 1991) have described a number of strategies available to individuals to help i:hem maintain positive views of their abilities, even when some of the feedback they receive on their abilities is negative. Although the list that follows is an abbreviated one, it includes those strategies that one might conceivably apply to the phenomenon of body-image distortion.

Selective Importance

One strategy is for individuals to alter their beliefs about the importance of a particular trait or ability based on how they rate themselves on that trait or ability. According to this strategy, when individuals decide that they do not rate very highly on a particular desirable trait, they will convince themselves that the trait is not important to possess in the first place. In this way, individuals can maintain a fairly realistic view OF themselves (negative aspects and all), but still maintain a positive self-image by believing that these negative attributes are not important.

The utilization of this strateg,y was supported in research findings that self- serving assessments are more pr~onounced on dimensions of greater importance or evaluative meaning. For example, Campbell (1986) found that individuals rated as more relevant those abilities on which they claimed higher personal per- formance, and Miller (1 976) demonstrated that self-serving biases in attributions for success and failure were greater under conditions of higher ego involvement. In applying this strategy to individuals’ judgments of their physical characteris- tics, it would follow that individuals may be able to maintain high body esteem by downplaying the importance of feeling good about those aspects of their bod- ies about which they do not feel positively.

Social Comparison

A second strategy that influences the establishment and maintenance of self- enhancing illusions is for individuals to select a group to compare themselves with that will make them feel good. An obvious comparison group would be one that is disadvantaged, relative to the individual on the relevant dimension.

1956 POWELL ET AL.

This strategy of downward social comparison might be demonstrated in body- image distortion by finding that individuals think negatively of their bodies, but also hold on to the belief that others’ bodies are just as bad or worse than their own.

Interestingly, although individuals may find comparison groups to make them feel good or even decide that the general population shares their limitations, they do not extend these negative comparisons to friends and acquaintances. This was demonstrated by Brown (1 986), who found that although individuals rated them- selves more favorably than they did most other people, they did not necessarily rate themselves better than their friends. This perception of friends (and intimate others, such as spouses) as better than others has also been found in attributions of success and failure (Hall & Taylor, 1976; Taylor & Koivumaki, 1976) and in seeing one’s group as more positive than other groups (see Tajfel & Turner, 1986, for a review). Of course, this tendency may also be self-serving in that it allows individuals to perceive their own friends as more positive (and less negative) than the friends of others. Another explanation is that friends and acquaintances are less abstract than “the average peer” and that it is easier to construct one’s judgment of a more abstract target in a way that will make oneself look better by comparison. Consistent with this, Alicke, Klotz, Breitenbecher, Yurak, and Vredenburg (1 995) found that there was less self-enhancement when people compared themselves to a random college student (less abstract), rather than the average college student (more abstract).

Extending these results to body-image distortion, this strategy would be for individuals to convince themselves that although they may be unhappy with their bodies, they at least like their own bodies more than they like the body of some other person. Of course, this strategy (and the success of this strategy) may depend on who this comparison person or group is. Self-enhancement might occur if the comparison group was a disadvantaged group, such as obese people, or even if it were some abstract “average” person. Presumably, though, when the comparison group is a friend, this self-enhancement effect may not be as strong.

Ambiguity of Attributes

Finally, there is a thud strategy that has been found to influence self-enhanc- ing illusions and that might find some application to body-esteem research. This is not so much a strategy used by individuals to help them feel good about them- selves, but a finding from the research pointing out those occasions when it is easier-r at least when individuals are more likely-to be self-serving in their assessments. Research has shown that traits that are more ambiguous and less objectively verifiable are more easily distorted to make one feel better than is perhaps warranted.

BODY ESTEEM 1957

This factor was supported in research by Felson (1981), who had college football players rate themselves on several relatively unambiguous abilities (speed, size, and strength) and scveral more ambiguous abilities (mental tough- ness, quick reactions, coordination, and football sense). He found that the play- ers’ self-ratings were not significantly different from their coaches’ ratings on the unambiguous abilities, but were much higher than their coaches’ assessments on the ambiguous abilities. Similarly, Allison, Messick, and Goethals ( 1 989) attrib- uted their finding of greater self-serving bias in assessments of morality than in intelligence to the greater publicity, specificity, and objectivity of the behaviors in the latter dimension.

One way that ambiguity may lead to more self-serving assessments is that it allows the individual to create his or her own idiosyncratic definitions of traits and abilities. That is, the definitions of, for example, excellence or competence in gen- eral may be more unclear than definitions of excellence or competence on a spe- cific task, leaving people free to use divergent criteria to define the traits and, consequently, to evaluate themsclves. Thus, one person may assess his or her “overall health” (an ambiguous hait) based on how many sports he or she plays and whether he or she is a member of a health club. On the other hand, some people may base their evaluations of their own health on diet, weight, cholesterol level, and whether or not they smoke. Presumably, individuals choose the criteria to make these judgments that cast themselves in the most positive light. Dunning and his colleagues (Dunning & Cohen, 1992; Dunning, Leuenberger, & Sherman, 1995; Dunning & McElwee, 1995; Dunning, Meyerowitz, & Holzberg, 1989) sup- ported this account in a series of siudies. In applying this strategy to self-ratings of the body, it follows that individuals would feel better about a more ambiguous fac- tor, such as “physique,” rather than a less ambiguous factor, such as “hips.”

Short-Circuiting Positive Illusions in Body Image

Each of these three strategies has been effective in establishing and maintain- ing positive illusions in various a9ilities and traits in individuals’ lives. Unfortu- nately, they do not appear to be effective in establishing and maintaining positive illusions in body image. In fact, these strategies are not effective in producing even a realistic or healthy body image. One possible explanation for this is that current societal pressures short-circuit these mechanisms.

For example, it is difficult for individuals to downplay the importance of physical appearance and characteristics when health, beauty, fitness, and weight loss are such predominant themes in the media, especially in advertising (e.g., Kilbourne, 1994). Similarly, it is difficult for individuals to find groups to com- pare themselves with that will make them feel good about their physical charac- teristics. The overwhelming image portrayed in the media is of the physically fit and beautiful. Examples of overweight people in the media are few and far

1958 POWELL ET AL.

between. An interesting demonstration of this was mentioned by Stice and Shaw ( 1 994), who were experimentally assessing the effects of exposure to the “thin ideal” on women’s mood and body satisfaction. The researchers had no problem finding ultra-thin female models in mainstream women’s magazines, but had considerable difficulty finding pictures of average-weight women in these maga- zines. Eventually, they turned to magazines catering to larger women for their pictures of models fitting their criteria of normal weight.

The third strategy proposes that it is possible for individuals to feel good about their bodies by developing a definition of good body that will allow for positive evaluations of themselves. Thus, an individual who was not thin could define a good body as one that was not thin. However, this requires some ambi- guity of the trait to be defined. For example, there are numerous examples of people whom society has labeled “beautiful” who have brown, blue, green eyes, or black, blonde, red hair. Consequently, it is possible for individuals to define beautiful eye color or beautiful hair color by whatever color eyes or hair they possess themselves. But other aspects of beauty or ideal body are less ambigu- ous, the obvious example being weight. Certain aspects of beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but one’s weight is measured on the scale, and society has unambiguously defined what the “right” weight is.

The Present Study

The present study is a first attempt at understanding why we as individuals are able to make ourselves feel better in so many areas of our lives, but in this area of body image distort our opinions in an almost opposite fashion. To investi- gate this discrepancy, we look at the three strategies just discussed that have been found to maintain positive feelings about ourselves in some areas, and examine how and why these strategies are not being used successfully to foster positive feelings about our bodies.

The first strategy is adjusting the selective importance of the traits; that is, the strategy of downplaying the importance of positive characteristics that one does not possess (or negative characteristics that one does possess). Hypothesis 1 pre- dicts that there will be a positive correlation between individuals’ ratings of how positively they feel about their bodies and the importance they place on feeling positively about their bodies. According to the body-image distortion literature, however, it is hypothesized that this correlation will be significantly weaker for females than for males.

The second strategy involves using social comparison to make individuals feel good about themselves. Hypothesis 2 predicts that individuals’ feelings should be higher when evaluating their own bodies than when evaluating the body of an “average” person. Again, however, the body-image literature leads to a different hypothesis: There should be no above-average effect in body-esteem evaluations, especially for women. Related to this hypothesis are two additional

BODY ESTEEM 1959

research questions. First, will there be a significant difference between body- esteem evaluations of oneself and a close same-gender friend? This research question is based on research by Alicke et al. (1995), who found that self- enhancing illusions are exaggerated when individuals compare themselves to an average peer and reduced when comparisons are made with an individuated tar- get (e.g., someone with whom the student has had personal contact). Second, will individuals be aware that the average person and close same-gender friends might have feelings about their own bodies similar to those feelings the partici- pant has about his or her own body? This research question is based less on self- serving bias research and more on the concern that individuals (especially women) are unaware that their peers are also struggling with body-esteem issues.

The third strategy concerns the ambiguity of traits and is based on the finding that general traits are easier to distort than specific characteristics. Hypothesis 3 predicts that individuals will rate their body’s general traits more positively than they will rate their body’s specific aspects, to the extent that these specific aspects are objectively measurable.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants were 192 students (96 males, 96 females) enrolled in introduc- tory psychology courses at a private northeastern university who participated as a way of fulfilling the course’s research requirement. The mean age of participants was 19.8 years. The sample consisted of 140 (73%) White (non-Hispanic), 25 (1 3%) AsianPacific Islander, I3 (7%) Black (non-Hispanic), 8 (4%) Hispanic, and 6 (3%) “other” students.

There were 16 different forms of the questionnaire (4 manipulated forms x 4 counterbalanced orderings). Fonns were randomly distributed, and the experi- menter assured all participants that their responses were confidential. The ques- tionnaire took approximately 20 min to answer, and participants were debriefed after they had completed it.

Measures

The questionnaire consisted o’f three parts: a demographic questionnaire, the Eating Attitudes Test (Gamer & Garfinkel, 1979), and the Body Esteem scale (BES; Franzoi & Shields, 1984). The order of the three instruments was counter- balanced between participants.

Demographics. The demographic questionnaire asked participants their gender, age, weight, height, and racial/ethnic background. Height and weight information was collected so that body mass index (BMI) could be calculated for individual participants.

1960 POWELL ET AL.

Eating Attitudes Test (EAT). The EAT (Garner & Garfinkel, 1979) is a 40- item instrument designed to measure a broad range of behaviors and attitudes characteristic of anorexia nervosa. The instrument has demonstrated a high internal consistency (coefficient a = .94). Each item is a symptom frequently observed in anorexia nervosa and is scored in terms of how frequently the respondent experiences it. Total scores on the scale range from 0 to 120; higher scores correspond with more eating concerns, with a rough cutoff score of 30, above which indicates eating concerns. The EAT was administered in the present study to allow a comparison of the prevalence rate of women with eating con- cerns between this sample and the college norm.

Body Esteem Scale. The BES (Franzoi & Shields, 1984) is a 35-item instru- ment. Each item refers to a specific body part, and respondents are instructed to rate their feelings about each item on a 5-point Likert scale. Research has revealed three moderately intercorrelated dimensions of body esteem for women and three different moderately intercorrelated dimensions of body esteem for men. Higher subscale scores for women reflect more positive subjective apprais- als of body parts and functions related to sexual attractiveness, weight concern, and physical condition. Subscales for men reflect appraisals of physical attrac- tiveness, physical condition, and upper-body strength.

The BES (Franzoi & Shields, 1984) was modified for the present study in two ways. First, participants were instructed to complete four versions of the ques- tionnaire, which are described in a later section. Second, the original instrument employed a 5-point scale for responses, while the present study used a 9-point response format. The reasoning behind this alteration was that since participants would be completing the questionnaire more than once, the additional points on the scale might make it more difficult for them to remember exact responses from previous administrations.

Traitssfrom BES. In addition to the 35-item BES (Franzoi & Shields, 1984) itself, a separate set of items was presented to participants that reflected the names of the three subscales (traits) for each gender. Thus, males were asked to rate their feelings about themselves on physical attractiveness, physical condi- tion, and upper-body strength. Females rated their feelings about sexual attrac- tiveness, physical condition, and weight concern. These subscale names were included as a way of determining responses to “ambiguous traits,” which could then be compared to responses to the specific items on the BES that made up those traits. Ratings of these traits were made twice for each respondent: In one they rated their feelings about each general trait, and in the other they rated “the importance of having positive feelings about each trait.”

Stimulus Person Manipulation

Participants completed the BES (Franzoi & Shields, 1984) twice concerning themselves: Once in which the respondents rated their feelings about the 35 body

BODY ESTEEM 1961

characteristics, and once in which the respondents rated the importance they placed on feeling positively about each body characteristic. Participants also completed the BES twice under instructions to make ratings of the items on the BES concerning another person. Participants were randomly assigned to imagine that this other individual was either (a) a close same-gender friend at the univer- sity, or (b) the average same-gender student at the university.

Additionally, half of the participants in each of these conditions were instructed to “rate how you feel about this individual” (either the average student or a specific person), and the other half were instructed to “rate how this individ- ual feels about himselfierself.” ‘The reason for hrther dividing participants into rating the other person in terms of how the participant feels about the other indi- vidual versus how the other individual feels about herself7himself is because the two perspectives ask and answer different questions. The first perspective described in which a comparisoii is made between how participants rate them- selves and how they feel about another individual is really a straightforward test of Hypothesis 2 to examine the presence of a self-enhancing illusion. In essence, this condition tests whether participants may be saying, “I feel a particular way about my own body, but I feel less positively about that other individual’s body.”

The second perspective in which participants rate how they think the other individual feels about herselflhimself is really a test of whether the participant is aware that other students might have distorted body images. In essence, a com- parison of these ratings with ratings of the self is testing whether participants may be saying, “I feel a particular way about my own body, but I bet that other individual feels more negatively iibout herhis own body.”

To summarize, the BES (Franzoi & Shields, 1984) was actually completed four different times: Participants rated themselves twice, and they rated another individual twice. The instruction:; for rating this other individual were randomly assigned to either: (a) indicate how you feel about a close same-gender friend at the university; (b) indicate how you think a close same-gender friend at the uni- versity feels; (c) indicate how you feel about an “average” same-gender univer- sity student; or (d) indicate how :you think an “average” same-gender university student feels. The ratings made of themselves and the other individual were made under two sets of instructions: once in which they rated their feelings about body characteristics, and once in which they rated the importance they placed on feel- ing positive about each body characteristic.

Results

Because participants would be making judgments about their own bodies, and subsequent statistical comparisons would be made between these ratings and par- ticipants’ ratings of other university students, it was important to determine whether this sample, in fact, was similar in terms of body characteristics to a

1962 POWELL ET AL

“normal” college population. Thus, participants were asked for their heights and weights so that body mass index (BMI) could be calculated for both genders. The mean BMI for males in the sample was 23.4 (SD = 2.8), and the mean BMI for females was 2 1.6 (SD = 3.2). According to the National Center for Health Statis- tics (Najjar & Rowland, 1987), the mean BMI for 18- to 24-year-olds is 23.5 for males and 22.6 for females. Means comparisons revealed that there was no sig- nificant difference between males’ BMI in the present sample and the norm, t < 1. There was, however, a significant difference among females between the present sample and the norm, t(95) = 3.03, p < .01.

An additional comparison was made between this sample and the college norm on EAT (Gamer & Garfinkel, 1979) scores. The mean EAT score for males in the sample was 12.2 (SD = 6.5), with 1% scoring 30 or above (indicative of eating concerns). The mean EAT score for females in the sample was 18.0 (SD =

12.9), with 19% scoring 30 or above. In a review of eight studies investigating EAT scores among college women, Raciti and Norcross (1987) found a mean EAT score of 16.7, which was not significantly different from the mean for women in the present study, t < 1. These researchers also found prevalence rates of women with eating concerns (mean EAT scores > 30) ranging from 6% to 13% in the eight studies. The prevalence rate of eating concerns in the present study (1 9%) is not significantly different from those five samples at the higher end of prevalence rates, but is significantly higher than the rates of the three samples at the lower end. The picture that this paints of participants in the present study is that the women in general have a slightly lower average BMI and a slightly higher prevalence of eating concerns than women in many other college samples.

Hypothesis I

The first hypothesis was that there would be a positive correlation between individuals’ ratings of how they feel about their bodies and the importance they place on feeling positive about their bodies. To test this, the correlations were cal- culated between ratings of feelings and ratings of the importance of these feelings for each of the three subscales created by the individual items of the BES (Franzoi & Shields, 1984) for both males and females. As can be seen in Table 1, five of the six correlations were positive. The interesting exception was the corre- lation between women’s feelings about their weight and their ratings of the importance of feeling good about their weight, which was not significantly dif- ferent from zero.

Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2 and its associated research questions tested whether differences would be found between participants’ ratings of themselves, an average same- gender student, and a close same-gender friend. To test this hypothesis, separate

BODY ESTEEM 1963

Table 1

Correlations Between Self-Ratings and Perceived Importance

BES subscale females r BES subscale males r

Sexual attractiveness .4ti*** Physical attractiveness .49***

Physical condition .34*** Upper-body strength .42*** Weight concern -.13 Physical condition .35***

Note. BES = Body Esteem Scale. ***,< ,001.

repeated-measures ANOVAs were conducted to compare self-ratings with other- ratings in each of the four stimulus person conditions. It should be recalled that participants rated others in one of four randomly assigned conditions: (a) how they felt about a close same-gender friend at the university; (b) how they felt about an “average” university student; (c) how they thought an “average” uni- versity student feels; and (d) how they thought a close same-gender friend at the university feels. Hypothesis 2 was tested by comparing self-ratings with those ratings made in condition b just listed. The first research question was tested by comparing self-ratings with ratings made in condition a. The second research question was tested by comparing self-ratings with ratings made in conditions c and d. The means for males and females on all three dimensions are reported in Table 2 for both self and other in the four conditions.

How individuals feel about the average student. For males, when the instruc- tions were to rate how one felt about the average student, results were consistent with the hypothesis: Males rated themselves higher than they rated the average male student on all three dimensions. For physical attractiveness, the mean self- rating was 6.5 (SD = 1.21) and tlhe mean rating of the average student was 5.6 (SD = 1.26), F( 1,23) = 9.90, p < .01. For physical condition, the mean self-rating was 6.8 (SO = 1.09) and the mean rating of the average student was 6.1 (SO = 1.359, F( 1,23) = 4.34, p < .05. For upper-body strength, the mean self-rating was 6.7 (SD = 1.10) and the mean rating of the average student was 6.0 (SD = 1.39), F(1,23) = 5 . 1 8 , ~ < .05.

For females, the comparisons between ratings of self and ratings of the aver- age female student did not reveal differences consistent with the hypothesis. There was no significant difference between self- and other-ratings on sexual attractiveness (p > .05) and physical condition (p > .05). There was a significant difference between self- and other-ratings on the weight-concern dimension, but it was in the opposite direction from that predicted. The mean self-rating on weight concern was 4.7 (SD = 1 .:%), and the mean rating of the average female student on this subscale was 6.1 (SD = 1.48), F( 1,23) = 12.17, p < .01.

Tabl

e 2

W

0 s

Ralin

gs o

f Sel

f and

Oth

er o

n BE

S Si

rbsc

ales

as

a Fu

nclio

n of

S/it

nulu

s Per

son

and

lnsl

ruct

ions

7

r

rn

9

!-

Stim

ulus

per

son

and

inst

ruct

ions

-I

BES

subs

cale

Se

lf

A a

Self

B

b Se

lf

CC

Self

Dd

Fem

ales

Sexu

al a

ttrac

tiven

ess

6.3

6.0

6.3

6.1

6.4

6.1

6.1

6.2

Wei

ght c

once

rn

4.7

6.1*

* 5.

4 5.

8 5.

6 5.

5 4.

8 5.

3 Ph

ysic

al c

ondi

tion

5.8

6.0

6.1

6.2

6.6

5.7*

* 6.

2 5.

8

Phys

ical

attr

activ

enes

s 6.

5 5.

6**

6.4

5.4*

**

6.0

6.0

6.2

5.9*

Phys

ical

con

ditio

n 6.

8 6.

1*

6.5

6.0

6.3

6.3

6.6

5.7*

*

Mal

es

Upp

er-b

ody

stre

ngth

6.

7 6.

0*

6.4

5.8

6.1

6.6

6.4

6.2

~~

Not

e. B

ES =

Bod

y Es

teem

Sca

le.

aA =

“R

ate y

our f

eelin

gs ab

out y

ours

elf.”

bB =

“R

ate y

our f

eelin

gs ab

out a

clo

se sa

me-

gend

er fr

iend

.” CC

= “R

ate

how

you

bel

ieve

the

aver

age s

ame-

gend

er s

tude

nt fe

els

abou

t him

selfh

erse

lf.” d

D =

“Rat

e ho

w y

ou b

elie

ve a

clo

se s

ame-

gend

er fr

iend

feel

s abo

ut h

imse

lf/

hers

elf.”

*p

<.O

5. **

p<

.Ol.

***p

<.O

OI.

BODY ESTEEM 1965

How individuals feel about a close same-gender friend at the university. A related research question tested the difference between self- and other-ratings when the target person was a close same-gender friend, rather than just an aver- age student of the same gender. In five of six comparisons, no significant differ- ences were found. Among males, there was no significant difference between self and other (friend) for the subscales of physical condition and upper-body strength (both ps > .05). For the physicid attractiveness condition, however, there was a significant difference, with males rating themselves higher ( M = 6.4, SD = 1 . 1 1 ) than the specific friend (A4 = 5.4, SD = 0.73), F( 1,23) = 17.67, p < .OO 1. There were no significant differences between ratings of self and friend among the three subscales for women.

How the average student feels about himself/herselJ: The two sets of analyses just described tested Hypothesis 2 and the first research question associated with the hypothesis by comparing individuals’ feelings about their own bodies with their feelings about the bodies of the average university student or a close same- gender friend. The next two sets of comparisons tested the second research ques- tion concerning whether participants would be aware that other university stu- dents might have distorted body images. The stimulus persons for the next two comparisons were also the average university student and a close same-gender friend, but for these conditions, the instructions to participants were to rate how they thought these persons felt about themselves. These are conditions c and d as described earlier, and the means associated with these comparisons are reported in Table 2.

There were no differences between ratings of self and ratings of how the average person feels about himself among male participants for any of the three subscales (all p s > .05). There was only one significant difference among females, with women rating their feelings about themselves on physical condi- tion higher ( M = 6.6, SD = 0.98) than they rated how they felt the average student would rate herself on physical condition ( M = 5.7, SD = 0.86), F(1, 23) = 13.85,

How a close same-gender friend feels about himself/herselJ: In the condition in which males were instructed to rate how a close same-gender friend feels about himself, males rated themselves higher on physical attractiveness ( M = 6.2, SD = 0.88) than they thought the friend would rate himself on this subscale ( M = 5.9, SD = 0.76), F(1, 23) = 6 . 8 2 , ~ < .05. There was also a significant difference for physical condition: The mean self-rating was 6.6 (SD = 0.85) and the mean rating of how the individual was expected to feel about himself was 5.7 (SD =

1.40), F( 1,23) = 1 1 . 6 4 , ~ < .01. There was no significant difference between self- and other-ratings on the upper-body strength dimension (p > .05). For females, there were no significant differences between ratings of the self and ratings of how they thought a close same-gender friend would feel about herself on any of the three subscales (all p s > .05).

p < .01.

1966 POWELL ET AL.

Table 3

Comparisons Between General Traits and Specific Items on BES Subscales

Average rating of Single-item trait items in trait

BES subscale (general) (specific) ~

Females Sexual attractiveness Weight concern Physical condition

Physical attractiveness Physical condition Upper-body strength

Males

6.2 6.3 4.8 5.1* 6.0 6.1

6.8 6.8 6.3

6.3*** 6.6 6.4

Note. BES = Body Esteem Scale. * p < .05. ***p < ,001.

Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 3 predicted that individuals would rate their bodies’ general traits more positively than they would rate their bodies’ specific characteristics. To test this hypothesis, the average rating for the individual items that made up each sub- scale on the BES (Franzoi & Shields, 1984; i.e., the self-ratings just described in Hypothesis 2) were compared with the rating made of the traits as measured by single items. Means are reported in Table 3. The average specific characteristic was compared with the trait rating for each subscale in repeated-measures ANOVAs. Thus, for example, the items that made up males’ scores on the physi- cal condition subscale were averaged and compared with the response to the single item “How do you feel about your physical condition?’

For males, when trait ratings were compared with the average rating for the specific characteristics that defined that trait, the rating of the single item physi- cal attractiveness was significantly higher (M = 6.8, SD = 1.55) than the average rating for the specific characteristics that make up that trait (M= 6.3, SD = 1.06), F( 1,95) = 19.60, p < .OO 1. There were no significant differences between ratings of the general traits and the specifics for the other two subscales for males (both ps > .05).

For females, there was again only one significant difference between ratings of the trait and the average rating of the individual characteristics, and this was for the weight-concern subscale. However, the difference was in the

BODY ESTEEM 1967

opposite direction from that hypothesized: Females rated the individual specific characteristics higher (M = 5 . I , SD = 1.64) than the general trait (M = 4.8, SD =

2.15),F(l, 9 5 ) = 5 . 7 5 , ~ < . 0 5 . Hypothesis 3 predicted that individuals would rate themselves higher on gen-

eral traits than on specific characteristics. This is because the ambiguous nature of the more general traits would make it easier to define that trait in a self-serving way. Although this had been found in numerous other domains, it was not found in the present investigation. Males rated themselves higher on the more general trait of physical attractiveness than they did the specific characteristics that com- prise that trait, but the opposite was found in women’s ratings of weight concern; and no differences were found in the other two comparisons for men and two comparisons for women. One possible reason for the lack of consistency in the present study with previous investigations is that simply labeling a subscale as a general trait (i.e., ambiguous) does not necessarily make it so in the eyes of the respondents.

Thus, a second experiment was conducted in which the 35 items of the BES (Franzoi & Shields, 1984) were administered to 17 male and I7 female partici- pants (sampled 1 year later, from the same subject pool as the experiment just described). This time, however, the instructions were to rate each of the items on the BES on a %point scale, with 9 corresponding to a trait that is v e v ambiguous and 1 corresponding to a characteristic that is very specific and objective. The mean ratings of ambiguity for each of the 35 items from this sample were then correlated with the mean self-ratings taken from the original sample of 192 subjects. The correlation for males was .43 (p = .01) and for females was .42 (p =

.O 1). These analyses strongly support Hypothesis 3 and provide a more objective test, since the ambiguity of characteristics was empirically determined rather than assumed as it had been in the earlier test of Hypothesis 3.

These findings do not, however, explain why in the original experiment females rated the individual’s specific characteristics of weight higher than the general trait of weight concern. However, an interesting aspect of the scale itself reveals a partial answer to this question. In the scale, one of the items comprising the trait of weight concern is “weight.” In other words, weight is both a trait and an individual item. When we compared women’s evaluations and importance rat- ings of weight (as an individual item) with the other 34 items in the scale, we found that weight was the second most negatively rated item when evaluating oneself (only “thighs” was rated more negatively) and that weight was the most unambiguous item of the 35. This means that regardless of how it is fiamed, both the general trait and the specific items related to weight concern are rated more negatively than are the other traits and their constituent items. Furthermore, weight is considered a very specific thing, less ambiguous than the other general traits, and even less ambiguous than most of the individual characteristics that comprise it.

1968 POWELL ET AL.

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to investigate how some of the strate- gies employed by individuals to maintain positive illusions about themselves are relevant to explaining individuals’ body-image distortion. The strategies explored were selective importance, social comparison, and ambiguity of attributes, which correspond with Hypotheses 1,2, and 3, respectively.

The first strategy was downplaying the importance of positive physical char- acteristics that one does not possess and emphasizing the importance of positive physical characteristics that one does possess. This strategy had been found in numerous studies in which individuals rated themselves on characteristics out- side the area of body esteem, but had not been tested in individuals’ ratings of their bodies. The finding from the present study is that an individual’s feelings about his or her body image are positively correlated with the individual’s per- ceived importance of these feelings. This was true for all three major dimensions of males’ body esteem and for two of the three dimensions of females’ body esteem. Apparently, individuals are, for the most part, able to downplay the importance of those physical characteristics about which they feel negative. The noticeable exception to this pattern was the lack of correlation between women’s feelings about their weight and their ratings of the importance of feeling good about their weight.

These findings are similar to those from an earlier study by Franzoi, Kessenich, and Sugrue (1 989), who also had university students complete the BES (Franzoi & Shields, 1984) under instructions to rate their attitudes about their bodies, as well as the importance of each item. The only noticeable differ- ence between the findings of the two studies was that correlations between females’ ratings of importance and ratings of feelings in their study did not reach significance on the sexual attractiveness scale and physical condition scale. Nev- ertheless, the pattern of findings was very similar in both studies, and it was espe- cially notable that Franzoi et al. also found weight concern to be the only negative correlation among the six, three BES scales for men and three BES scales for women. It also should be noted that the earlier study had participants make their judgments of importance under slightly different instructions. Whereas in the present study, participants were instructed to rate the importance of having positive feelings about each characteristic, the Franzoi et al. study asked respondents to rate characteristics in terms of how important they believed it was in the opposite gender’s evaluation of their own attractiveness. Apparently, the two sets of instructions produce quite similar responses.

The lack of a positive correlation between weight and importance may indi- cate that women think that the value placed on weight is so important (and the thin ideal so difficult to attain) that they cannot feel satisfied with their weight. Consequently, the self-serving bias in women does not extend to weight. In a

BODY ESTEEM 1969

review of the literature on gender, class, and race and their relationship to weight, Bowen, Tomoyasu, and Cauce (1991) stated that weight is a major issue for women that is embedded within societal expectations. In fact, Rodin et al. (1984) suggest that weight dissatisfaction is part of the feminine gender role, thereby supporting women in their belief that they are unhappy with their weight. To be mentally healthy, women must complain about or dislike their bodies.

The second strategy investigated was that although individuals may not feel overly positive about their own bodies, they at least might feel better about their own bodies than they do the bodies of others. The findings were that males’ self- ratings were significantly higher on all three subscales than were their ratings of others, thereby supporting the self-serving bias found in other domains. On the other hand, females’ self-ratings were not different than other-ratings, except for weight concern, which actually produced the opposite effect: Women felt worse about their own weight than they did about the weight of the average woman. This suggests that the self-serving bias concerning the body extends to men but not to women. Feelings about one’s body are more important and central to a woman’s self than a man’s self, meaning that it is difficult for women to simply dismiss some negative aspects of their bodies as unimportant: Women assume that every aspect of their bodies is important.

There were two other questions related to this phenomenon of social compar- ison. The first was whether individuals would necessarily feel different about their own bodies than they did the bodies of a close same-gender friend. In five of six comparisons, there was not a difference between ratings of the self and a same-gender friend. The only exception was that males still rated their own phys- ical attractiveness higher than that of a close friend.

The second question compared self-ratings with how individuals thought oth- ers felt about themselves. Another way of saying this is that if individuals rated themselves low (or high) on a particular physical characteristic, would they also realize that other individuals rate themselves low (or high) as well? Results from these comparisons suggest that, in general (in 9 of 12 comparisons), individuals do not perceive their own body esteem significantly differently than they believe that others perceive themselves. There were exceptions to this that may be worth some additional investigation. Women felt better about their own physical condi- tion than they thought the average female college student felt about her own physical condition; and men thought that a close male friend did not feel as good about his own physical condition and physical attractiveness as they did about themselves on these traits.

An interesting implication of these findings regarding social comparison is that although there is some negative body-image distortion happening among women (especially concerning weight), at least these women are aware that other women feel similarly about themselves. This is an interesting phenomenon and is, in fact, an accurate perception on the part of the women in this study.

1970 POWELL ET AL

Women’s perceptions of others are quite consistent with Rodin et a l .3 (1984) claim that a moderate degree of body dissatisfaction is normative among women and Polivy and Herman’s (1 987) statement that “normal” eating for North Amer- ican women is now characterized by dieting.

The general conclusions from these results are that men make judgments about their bodies in much the same way that they make judgments about other areas of their lives and that women do this less consistently. Men rate themselves higher than the average person, they tend to consider important those aspects of their bodies about which they feel positive, and dismiss as unimportant those qualities about which they feel negative. Furthermore, men rate themselves higher on ambiguous characteristics than on unambiguous ones, perhaps because the ambiguity of a quality allows them to define that quality in a self-serving way. All of these findings are consistent with self-enhancing illusions in other areas of self-judgments.

Women, on the other hand, showed a much less consistent tendency to employ self-enhancing strategies in judgments of their bodies. The one finding that was similar to self-judgments in other areas was that women rated them- selves higher on ambiguous characteristics than on more objective characteris- tics, a finding almost identical to that of males’ judgments. But women did not rate themselves higher than the average female on any traits, and even rated themselves lower than the average female on weight concern. And, similar to the males and similar to self-judgments in other areas, women rated highly those aspects of their bodies about which they feel positive, and considered less impor- tant those qualities about which they feel negative. However, that was only the case in two out of the three factors: Weight concern did not follow this pattern.

Perhaps the most glaring specific conclusion one can draw from these results is how differently the dimension of weight concern is judged than the other dimensions. With very few exceptions, the three subscales for males “behaved” rather similarly. And although it was often different than the pattern of results from males, two of the three subscales of women behaved rather similarly. But weight concern was typically an exception. All of these findings support the con- clusion that weight concern is a unique aspect of women’s body esteem. Specifi- cally, women have more positive feelings about the weight of the average university student than they do their own weight, and they cannot dismiss the importance of weight, which is supported culturally.

An important next question to address, then, is how we could use these self- serving strategies to combat women’s negative body image and especially their weight concerns. The first strategy to consider is ambiguity, and there is evidence from this study suggesting that individuals’ judgments are already influenced by the ambiguity of the traits they are judging. In other words, both men and women are defining characteristics in ways that allow themselves to emphasize their own positive qualities. Again, however, women’s weight concern is a major exception

BODY ESTEEM 1971

to this pattern. Women see weight as unambiguous and rate themselves nega- tively on this dimension. To combat this, can our definition of “good weight be somehow loosened to allow for heavier (and healthier) possibilities? Certainly ultra-thin has not always been the ideal, and there is some evidence that in the last decade there has been a decrease in emphasis on weight loss in women’s magazines and an increase in emphasis on fitness (Nemeroff, Stein, Diehl, & Smilack, 1994). Nevertheless, there continues to be a huge gender difference in the focus and concern with health, beauty, and weight loss, and there is little evi- dence that the ideal woman’s weight as depicted in the media is anything but thin.

The second strategy explored here is selective importance. Is it still be possi- ble to insulate women from low body esteem by helping them to decide that those characteristics surrounding weight are not important or even that one’s weight is not important? Research suggests that weight has not always been as important as it is today. Brumberg (1997) traces how “good looks” and body- related phenomena are more important for female adolescents today than early in the 20th century. There has been a cultural shift from attention being paid to “internal character” to girls’ present-day concern with the body as an expression of self. Certainly this should be viewed as cause for concern, as well as an impe- tus for further research. The link between poor body image and depression, low self-esteem, and eating disorders is only possible if women consider their bodies and their physical characteristics as critically important.

The third strategy is social comparison. A common explanation for poor body esteem in women is that social comparisons are made at the level of cultural ideals and that these ideals are unattainable. Thus, everyone (especially women) falls short. Findings from the present study are certainly consistent with this explanation, but also suggest that this “ideal” has influenced what is considered “average.” Women were asked to judge both themselves and the average student, and instead of finding that self-ratings were higher than other-ratings, as is found in other areas, the study showed that, at least in weight concerns, women rated themselves as below average. The average, as viewed by these women, is too ideal. Remember, too, that the women in this study had a significantly lower BMI than did the average woman, suggesting that an already thin sample rated their own weight more negatively than that of the average woman.

How does one go about changing what individuals perceive as average? How does the ideal come to be considered average? Certainly repeated exposure can go a long way in accounting for this. Constant media depictions of thin models, with few or no exceptions to these depictions, can eventually distort what is con- sidered average or even normal. The finding from previous studies that even brief exposure to thin models has negative effects on mood (Pinhas, Toner, Ali, Garfinkel, & Stuckless, 1999) and body image (Stice & Shaw, 1994) provides strong support for the distorting effects of more long-term exposure.

1972 POWELL ET AL.

In addition to these three strategies available to individuals to maintain posi- tive feelings (illusions) of themselves, there are other self-enhancement strategies that have been explored in other domains and that could be fruitful areas for hture investigations of how they might apply to body-image distortion. Accord- ing to Brown (1991), these general strategies have the potential for success by helping individuals deal with negative feedback. Because any realistic assess- ment of our skills or abilities must include some less than favorable feedback, the ways to maintain unrealistic positive feelings will be to either (a) behaviorally avoid negative feedback, (b) cognitively color this feedback, or (c) develop “damage-control’’ strategies to protect from the damage this feedback has on our sense of self-worth.

Thus, for example, one behavioral strategy for minimizing the likelihood that negative feedback will be encountered is for individuals to “actively approach feedback about their abilities when they expect it to be positive but largely refrain from seeking feedback about their abilities when they expect it to be negative” (Brown, 1991, p. 165). The application of this strategy to body-image judgments is straightforward: Individuals should ask only those people who are going to say something positive about their appearance and avoid seeking opinions of acquaintances who might say something negative. An interesting research ques- tion is whether this is, in fact, true, and whether women and men differ in the people from whom they seek such feedback.

Whenever negative feedback is not anticipated, it cannot be evaded entirely. Thus, cognitive strategies are available to distort the feedback. For example, an individual may interpret ambiguous feedback positively so that the phrase “Have you done something differently with your hair?” can be taken as a compliment. An interesting line of research would be to present men and women with such ambiguous statements and have them give their own interpretations of the mean- ing behind the different statements.

Finally, Brown (1991) suggests that we can call on a host of reserve strategies to maintain self-esteem. In other words, we do not evade or distort negative feed- back as much as we find ways of reducing its damage. Two of the strategies explored in the present study would fall into this category: selective importance and social comparison. Another strategy falling into this category that would be interesting to apply to body-esteem judgments is compensatory self- enhancement. According to this strategy, negative feedback regarding one’s body could be offset by exaggerating one’s worth in other aspects of the self. One potential strength of this strategy is that today’s culture makes it very difficult for individuals, especially women, to avoid negative feedback or distort it to feel favorably about one’s body. The cultural ideal is just too pervasive and too unat- tainable. Thus, developing compensatory strategies may be more realistic in many situations. One potential limitation of this strategy, however, is that today’s culture also puts so much emphasis on the body that there may not be other

BODY ESTEEM 1973

domains (e.g., intelligence arid sociability) to which individuals, especially women, can turn to offset this blow to self-worth.

Because of the increasing evidence that poor body image is, to a great degree, affected by culture and especially by the media, then the media are an obvious target for improving the situation. One approach is to moderate the influence of the mass media by helping individuals to be more discriminating and critical and less accepting of the media’s presentation of the ideal (e.g., Irving, DuPen, & Berel, 1998; Shaw & Waller, 1995) and more knowledgeable about health, weight, and dieting (Cogan, 1999). The other approach is less focused on educat- ing and treating the individual and more centered on media activism: “protesting (or conversely praising) media messages, advertisements, or products that are identified as conveying (or contradicting) unhealthy messages” (Thompson & Heinberg, 1999, p. 347). Future research should focus on both of these targets and how societal ideals become internalized and damaging, and prevent healthy self-judgments fiom occurring.

References

Abramson, L. Y., & Alloy, L. EL (1981). Depression, non-depression, and cogni- tive illusions: A reply to Schwartz. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110,436-447.

Alicke, M. D. (1985). Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability and controllability of trait adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

Alicke, M. D., Klotz, M. L., Rreitenbecher, D. L., Yurak, T. J., & Vredenburg, D. S. (1 995). Personal contact, individuation, and the better-than-average effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 804-825.

Allison, S. T., Messick, D. M., & Goethals, G. R. (1989). On being better but not smarter than others: The Muhammad Ali effect. Social Cognition, 7,275-296.

Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experiinental social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 157-21 5). New York, NY Academic Press.

Bowen, D. J., Tomoyasu, N., & Cauce, A. M. (199 1). The triple threat: A discus- sion of gender, class, and race differences in weight. Women and Health, 17,

Brown, J . D. (1986). Evaluations of self and others: Self-enhancement biases in social judgments. Social Cognition, 4,353-376.

Brown, J. D. (1991). Accuracy and bias in self-knowledge. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and clinicalpsychology: The health perspective (pp. 158-178). New York, NY: Pergamon.

Brumberg, J. J. (1 997). The Body Project: An intimate histov of American girls. New York, NY Random House.

ChologV, 49, 1621-1630.

123-143.

1974 POWELL ET AL.

Campbell, J. D. (1 986). Similarity and uniqueness: The effects of attribute type, relevance, and individual differences in self-esteem and depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,28 1-294.

Campbell, J. D., & Fairey, P. J. (1985). Effects of self-esteem, hypothetical expla- nations, and verbalizations of expectancies on future performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1097- 1 1 1 1.

Campbell, W. K., & Sedikides, C. (1998). Self-threat magnifies the self-serving bias: A meta-analytic integration. Review of General Psychology, 3, 23-43.

Cash, T. F., Winstead, B. A., & Janda, L. H. (1986). The great American shape-

Cogan, J. C. (1999). A new national health agenda: Providing the public with accurate information. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 383-400.

Colvin, C. R., & Block, J. (1994). Do positive illusions foster mental health? An examination of the Taylor and Brown formulation. Psychological Bulletin,

Coyne, J. C., & Gotlib, I. H. (1983). The role of cognition in depression: A criti- cal appraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 94,472-505.

Cross, P. (1977). Not can but will college teaching be improved. New Directions for Higher Education, 17, 1 - 15.

Dunning, D., & Cohen, G. L. (1992). Egocentric definitions of traits and abilities in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 341- 355.

Dunning, D., Leuenberger, A., & Sherman, D. A. (1995). A new look at moti- vated inference: Are self-serving theories of success a product of motiva- tional forces? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 58-68.

Dunning, D., & McElwee, R. 0. (1995). Idiosyncratic trait definitions: Implica- tions for self-description and social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 936-946.

Dunning, D., Meyerowitz, J. A., & Holzberg, A. D. (1989). Ambiguity and self- evaluation: The role of idiosyncratic trait definitions in self-serving assess- ments of ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,

Dykens, E. M., & Gerrard, M. (1986). Psychological profiles of purging bulimics, repeat dieters, and controls. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34,

Falbo, T., Poston, D. L., Jr., Triscari, R. S., & Zhang, X. (1 997). Self-enhancing illusions among Chinese schoolchildren. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol-

Fallon, A., & Rozin, P. (1985). Sex differences in perceptions of desirable body

Felson, R. B. (1981). Ambiguity and bias in the self-concept. Social Psychology

UP. Psychology Today, 20, 30-37.

116, 3-20.

1082- 1090.

136- 140.

ogy, 28, 172-191.

shape. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 94, 102-105.

Quarterly, 44,6449.

BODY ESTEEM 1975

Forsterling, F., Buhner, M., & Gall, S. (1998). Attributions of depressed persons: How consistent are they with the covariation principle? Journal of Personal- ity and Social Psychology, 75, 1047-1061.

Franzoi, S. L., Kessenich, J. J., & Sugrue, P. A. (1989). Gender differences in the experience of body awareness: An experiential sampling study. Sex Roles, 21,

Franzoi, S. L., & Shields, S. A. (1984). The Body Esteem scale: Multidimen- sional structure and sex differences in a college population. Journal of Per- sonality Assessment, 48, 173- 178.

Garfinkel, P. E., & Gamer, D. M. (1982). Anorexia nervosa: A multidimensional perspective. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.

Garner, D. M. (1997). The 1997 Body Image Survey results. Psychology Today,

Gamer, D. M., & Garfinkel, P. E. (1979). The Eating Attitude Test: An index of the symptoms of anorexia nervosa. Psychological Medicine, 9,273-279.

Golin, S. , Terrell, T., & Johnson, B. (1977). Depression and the illusion of con- trol. Journal of Abnormal P.sychology, 86,440-442.

Golin, S., Terrell, T., Weitz, J., & Drost, P. L. (1979). The illusion of control among depressed patients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88,454-457.

Grant, K., Lyons, A., Landis, D., Cho, M. H., Scudiero, M., Reynolds, L., Murphy, J., & Bryant, H. (1999). Gender, body image, and depressive symp- toms among low-income African American adolescents. Journal of Social Issues, 55,299-3 16.

Greenberg, M. S., Vasquez, C. V., & Alloy, L. B. (1988). Depression versus anxi- ety: Differences in self and other schemata. In L. B. Alloy (Ed.), Cognitive processes in depression (pp. 109-142). New York, NY Guilford.

Grubb, H. J., Sellers, M. I., & Waligroski, K. (1993). Factors related to depres- sion and eating disorders: Self-esteem, body image, and attractiveness. Psy- chological Reports, 72, 1003-1010.

Hall, J. , & Taylor, S. E. (1976). When love is blind Human Relarions, 29, 751- 761.

Hoorens, V., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Social comparison of health risks: Locus of control, the person-positivity bias, and unrealistic optimism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 29 1-302.

Irving, L. M., DuPen, J., & Berel, S. (1998). A media literacy program for high school females. Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment and Prevention,

Jacobi, L., & Cash, T. F. (1994:). In pursuit of the perfect appearance: Discrepan- cies among self-ideal percepts of multiple physical attributes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24,379-396.

Johnson, C. , & Comers, M. E. (1987). The etiology and treatment of bulimia ner- vosa: A biopsychosocial perspective. New York, NY: Basic Books.

499-5 15.

30,30-44,75-78,84

6, 119-131.

1976 POWELL ET AL.

Katzman, M. A., & Wolchik, S. A. (1984). Bulimia and binge eating in college women: A comparison of personality and behavioral characteristics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52,423-428.

Kilboume, J. (1994). Still killing us softly: Advertising and the obsession with thinness. In P. Fallon, M. A. Katzman, & S. C. Wooley (Eds.), Feminist per- spectives on eating disorders (pp. 395-4 18). New York, NY: Guilford.

Killen, J. D., Taylor, C. B., Hayward, C., Haydel, K. F., Wilson, D. M., Hammer, Kraemer, H., Blair-Greiner, A., & Strachowski, D. (1996). Weight concerns influence the development of eating disorders: A 4-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 936-940.

Killen, J. D., Taylor, C. B., Hayward, C., Wilson, D. M., Haydel, K. F., Robinson, T. N., Litt, I., Simmonds, B. A., Varady, H., & Kraemer, H. (1994). The pur- suit of thinness and onset of eating disorder symptoms in a community sam- ple of adolescent girls: A three-year prospective analysis. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 16,227-238.

Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., Matsumoto, H., & Norasakkunkit, V. (1997). Individual and collective processes in the construction of the self: Self- enhancement in the United States and self-criticism in Japan. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 72, 1245-1267.

Kuiper, N. A. (1978). Depression and causal attributions for success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36,236-246.

Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social

Langer, E. J., & Roth, J. (1975). Heads I win, tails it’s chance: The illusion of control as a function of the sequence of outcomes in a purely chance task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32,95 1-955.

Lemer, R. H., & Karbenick, S. A. (1974). Physical attractiveness, body attitudes, and self-concept in late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 3,

Miller, D. T. (1976). Ego involvement and attributions for success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34,90 1-906.

Mintz, L. B., & Betz, N. E. (1986). Prevalence and correlates of eating disor- dered behaviors among undergraduate women. Journal of Counseling Psy- chology, 35,463-47 1.

Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1997). A leap of faith? Positive illusions in roman- tic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23,586-604.

Najjar, M. F., & Rowland, M. (1987). Anthropometric reference data andpreva- Ience of overweight, United States, 1976-80 (National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Health Statistics, Series 11, No. 203, PHS PB 87-1688). Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services.

Nemeroff, C. J., Stein, R. I., Diehl, N. S., & Smilack, K. M. (1994). From the Cleavers to the Clintons: Role choices and body orientation as reflected in

Psychology, 32, 3 11-328.

307-3 16.

BODY ESTEEM 1977

magazine article content. Inlernational Journal of Eating Disorders, 16, 167- 176.

Nolan-Hoeksema, S., & Girgus, J. S. (1994). The emergence of gender differ- ences in depression during adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 424- 443.

Noles, S. W., Cash, T. F., & Winstead, B. A. (1985). Body image, physical attrac- tiveness, and depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53,

Perloff, L. S., & Fetzer, B. K. (1986). Self-other judgments and perceived vul- nerability of victimization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,

Pinhas, L., Toner, B. B., Ah, A., Garfinkel, P. E., & Stuckless, N. (1999). The effects of the ideal of female beauty on mood and body satisfaction. Znter- national Journal of Eating Llisorders, 25,223-226.

Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (1987). Diagnosis and treatment of normal eating. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55,635-644.

Raciti, M. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1987). The EAT and EDI: Screening, interrela- tionships, and psychometrics. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 6,

Regan, P. C., Snyder, M., & Kassin, S. M. (1995). Unrealistic optimism: Self- enhancement or person positivity? Personality and Social Psychology Bulle- tin, 21, 1073-1082.

Rizley, R. (1978). Depression and distortion in the attribution of causality. Jour- nal of Abnormal Psychology, 87,32-48.

Robertson, L. S. (1977). Car crashes: Perceived vulnerability and willingness to pay for crash protection. Journal of Community Health, 43, 136-141.

Rodin, J., Silberstein, L., & Streigel-Moore, R. (1984). Women and weight: A normative discontent. In T. B. Sonderegger (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 32. Psychology andgender (pp. 267-307). Lincoln, NE: Uni- versity of Nebraska Press.

Rosen, G . M., & Ross, A. 0. (1968). Relationship ofbody image to self-concept. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32, 100.

Ruehlman, L. S., West, S. G., & Pasahow, R. J. (1985). Depression and evalua- tive schemata. Journal of Personality, 53,46-92.

Secord, P. F., & Jourard, S. M. (1953). The appraisal of body cathexis and the self. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 17,343-347.

Sedikides, C. (1 993). Assessment, enhancement, and verification determinants of the self-evaluation process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

Sedikides, C., Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G. D., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). The self- serving bias in relational context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

88-94.

502-5 10.

579-586.

65, 317-338.

OD, 74, 378-386.

1978 POWELL ET AL.

Shaw, J., & Waller, G. (1995). The media’s impact on body image: Implications for prevention and treatment. Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment and Prevention, 3, 115-123.

Shisslak, C. M., Crago, M., & Estes, L. S. (1995). The spectrum of eating distur- bances. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 18, 209-2 19.

Stice, E., & Shaw, H. E. (1994). Adverse effects of the media-portrayed thin- ideal on women and linkages to bulimic symptomatology. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 288-308.

Striegel-Moore, R. H., Silberstein, L. R., & Rodin, J. (1986). Toward an under- standing of risk factors for bulimia. American Psychologist, 41,246-263.

Svenson, 0. (1981). Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow driv- ers? Acta Psychologica, 47, 143-148.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1 986). The social identity theory of intergroup behav- ior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Taylor, M. J., & Cooper, P. J. (1986). Body size overestimation and depressed mood. British Journal of Clinical Psychologv, 25, 153- 154.

Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psycho- logical perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-2 10.

Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1994). Positive illusions and well-being revisited: Separating fact from fiction. Psychological Bulletin, 116,2 1-27.

Taylor, S. E., & Koivumaki, J. H. (1976). The perception of self and others: Acquaintanceship, affect, and actor-observer differences. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 33,403-408.

Thompson, J. K., & Heinberg, L. J. (1999). The media’s influence on body image disturbance and eating disorders: We’ve reviled them, now can we rehabili- tate them? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 339-353.

Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806-820.

Williamson, D. A., Kelley, M. L., Davis, C. J., Ruiggiero, L., & Blovin, D. C. (1985). Psychopathology of eating disorders: A controlled comparison of bulimic, obese, and normal subjects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy- chology, 53, 161-166.