All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Effect of Thin vs. Plus-Size Models: A Comparison of Body Image Ideals by Gender
Unformatted Document Text:  Ideal Body Image, 18 Test of Effects of Experimental Factors The effects of thin and plus-size models on perceptions of ideal body shapes was evaluated using a 2 (Model Type: thin, plus-size) x 2 (Gender: women, men) x 3 (Ideal Body Image: self, other women, other men) mixed-factor design with self-esteem, physique anxiety, and body mass index entered as covariates. Ideal body image was the only within-subject factor with each respondent providing three evaluations: perceived self ideal, perceived ideal among other women, and perceived ideal among other men. The other two factors were between-subjects. The summary of means in each of the experimental conditions is presented in Table 2. Main effects were for Model Type, F (1, 236) = 7.23, p < .001, MSe = 1.02, and Ideal Body Image, F (2, 472) = 8.47, p < .001, Mse = .647, were significant. Body Mass Index, F (1, 236) = 13.8, p < .001, MSe = 1.02, and Physique Anxiety, F (1, 236) = 4.78, p < .05, Mse = 1.02, emerged as significant covariates. None of the other main effects were significant. Among the interactions, Ideal Body Image x Gender, F (2, 472) = 8.58, p < .001, MSe = .65, Ideal Body Image x Body Mass Index, F (2, 472) = 14.16, p < .001, MSe = .65, and Ideal Body Image x Self-Esteem, F (2, 472) = 3.19, p < .05, MSe = .65, were significant. In other words, perceptions of ideal body image interacted with gender of the respondent and two covariates, self-esteem and body mass index. The main effect for Model, which is the key factor in this study, implies that experimental manipulation had a significant impact on perceptions of ideal body type among both men and women. Among women, the mean for the ideal body shape was greater in the plus-models condition (M = 2.9) compared to the thin-models condition (M

Authors: Prabu, David., Liu, Kaiya. and Cortese, Juliann.
first   previous   Page 18 of 40   next   last



background image
Ideal Body Image, 18
Test of Effects of Experimental Factors
The effects of thin and plus-size models on perceptions of ideal body shapes was
evaluated using a 2 (Model Type: thin, plus-size) x 2 (Gender: women, men) x 3 (Ideal
Body Image: self, other women, other men) mixed-factor design with self-esteem,
physique anxiety, and body mass index entered as covariates. Ideal body image was the
only within-subject factor with each respondent providing three evaluations: perceived
self ideal, perceived ideal among other women, and perceived ideal among other men.
The other two factors were between-subjects. The summary of means in each of the
experimental conditions is presented in Table 2.
Main effects were for Model Type, F (1, 236) = 7.23, p < .001, MSe = 1.02, and
Ideal Body Image, F (2, 472) = 8.47, p < .001, Mse = .647, were significant. Body Mass
Index, F (1, 236) = 13.8, p < .001, MSe = 1.02, and Physique Anxiety, F (1, 236) = 4.78,
p < .05, Mse = 1.02, emerged as significant covariates. None of the other main effects
were significant.
Among the interactions, Ideal Body Image x Gender, F (2, 472) = 8.58, p < .001,
MSe = .65, Ideal Body Image x Body Mass Index, F (2, 472) = 14.16, p < .001, MSe =
.65, and Ideal Body Image x Self-Esteem, F (2, 472) = 3.19, p < .05, MSe = .65, were
significant. In other words, perceptions of ideal body image interacted with gender of the
respondent and two covariates, self-esteem and body mass index.
The main effect for Model, which is the key factor in this study, implies that
experimental manipulation had a significant impact on perceptions of ideal body type
among both men and women. Among women, the mean for the ideal body shape was
greater in the plus-models condition (M = 2.9) compared to the thin-models condition (M


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 18 of 40   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.