Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 34, No. 6, December 2005, pp. 629–636 ( C© 2005)DOI: 10.1007/s10964-005-8951-3

Adolescent Boys and Body Image: Weight and MuscularityConcerns as Dual Pathways to Body Dissatisfaction

Diane Carlson Jones1 and Joy K. Crawford2

Received June 2, 2004; accepted December 17, 2004

This research evaluated a dual pathway model for body dissatisfaction among adolescent boys. Thestudy provides empirical support for the importance of distinguishing between weight and muscularityconcerns in understanding male body image. A total of 128 boys from grades 8 and 11 completed aself-report questionnaire. Results indicated that weight and muscularity concerns each made uniquecontributions to body dissatisfaction and were associated with distinct individual and peer contextcharacteristics. Weight concern was associated with elevated BMI and more frequent appearanceconversations with friends. Muscularity concern was significantly greater among boys who reportedmore frequent muscle-building conversations, had lower BMI, and were older. The results supportthe importance of distinguishing between and assessing both muscularity and weight concerns in thedevelopment of body image dissatisfaction among adolescent boys.

KEY WORDS: body image; adolescent boys; muscularity; weight concerns; BMI.

INTRODUCTION

Body image satisfaction is an important issue dur-ing adolescence because of the tremendous physical,cognitive, and social changes that occur during this de-velopmental period. In addition to its importance devel-opmentally, body image satisfaction has received attentiondue to its central role as a risk factor in predicting self-esteem, eating disorders, and psychological adjustment.Although the research on body image has primarily fo-cused on girls (Stice and Whitenton, 2002; Thompsonet al., 1999; Wertheim et al., 2001), increasing recogni-tion of the psychosocial problems associated with body

1Diane Carlson Jones is an Associate Professor in Educational Psychol-ogy at the University of Washington. She is a developmental psycholo-gist whose major interest is in the contributions of peers to body imageand social–emotional well-being during adolescence. To whom corre-spondence should be addressed at Department of Educational Psychol-ogy, University of Washington, Box No. 353600, Seattle, Washington98195-3600; e-mail: jonesd@u.washington.edu.

2Joy K. Crawford is a doctoral candidate at the University of Washingtonin the Human Development and Cognition area of Educational Psy-chology. Her research focuses on the social–emotional development ofadolescents, academic and appearance social comparisons, and issuesrelated to gender and science.

dissatisfaction among boys has led to the need to un-derstand the factors influencing body image for males(Cohane and Pope, 2001; Smolak et al., 2001).

The desire to develop muscularity has emerged as acentral issue associated with male body image (Fisheret al., 2002; McCreary and Sasse, 2000; Rauste-vonWright, 1989; Ricciardelli and McCabe, 2004). The so-ciocultural pressure for the ideal muscular build has beenincreasingly evident in recent years in the greater muscularbulk of male action toys and magazine models (Leit et al.,2001; Pope et al., 1999). These trends have seeminglyhad a negative impact on adolescent boys in that the drivefor muscularity has been related to lower self-esteem andgreater depression (McCreary and Sasse, 2000). More-over, concern with muscularity has been associated withstrategies to increase muscularity, such as body building,excessive exercise, and anabolic steroid use (Ricciardelliand McCabe, 2003), with heightened body dissatisfac-tion (Labre, 2002; Smolak et al., 2001), and body im-age disturbances (Olivardia et al., 2000; Pope et al.,1997).

Male body dissatisfaction has also been related toweight concerns (Cohane and Pope, 2001; Ricciardelliand McCabe, 2001, 2003). Recent studies have demon-strated that body size as indicated by body mass index

629

0047-2891/2005/1200-0629/0 C© 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

630 Jones and Crawford

Body Dissatisfaction

Muscle Building

Conversations

Grade Level

BMI

Muscularity Concern

Weight Concern

Appearance Conversations with Frien ds

Fig. 1. Hypothesized dual pathway model predicting body dissatisfaction among adolescent boys.

(BMI) has been positively related to body dissatisfac-tion among preadolescent and adolescent boys (Joneset al., 2004; Lewinsohn et al., 2002; Paxton et al.,1991; Ricciardelli et al., 2003). For boys, the con-cern with weight has emerged primarily for individu-als who have had the highest BMI levels whereas forgirls, weight concerns have been evident across all BMIlevels (Field et al., 2001). Still, the results have indi-cated that, like girls, boys with elevated adiposity havebeen most likely to have negative feelings about theirbodies.

When examined as a whole, the pattern of resultssuggests that weight and muscular build are distinct as-pects of body dissatisfaction for boys. However, there hasbeen little empirical research to determine the relation-ship between weight and muscularity concerns and theirlinkage to body dissatisfaction. This oversight has beendue in part to a failure to obtain separate assessments ofthese conceptually distinct types of concerns (Cohane andPope, 2001). The present study overcame this limitationby evaluating both weight and muscularity concerns inboys. The prediction of body dissatisfaction was testedin a model that also integrated individual characteristics

(BMI and grade level) and sociocultural influences frompeers.

The conceptual model that guided this research ispresented in Fig. 1. The primary expectation of the currentstudy was that weight and muscularity concerns representdual pathways that would make significant yet distinctpositive contributions to body dissatisfaction for boys.Based on previous research, it was expected that boyswho expressed greater concern with these aspects of theirappearance would experience greater negative affect abouttheir body image. The levels of concern with weight andmuscularity were themselves conceptualized as reflectingphysical (BMI), developmental (grade level), and socialinfluences (peer appearance context).

The primary biological characteristic represented inthe model was BMI. Previous research has supported theexpectation that elevated BMI would be related positivelyto weight concerns (Field et al., 2001) and body dissat-isfaction (Jones et al., 2004). Although the relationshipbetween BMI and muscularity concerns has not been pre-viously reported, lower BMI status has been related tosome muscle gaining behaviors (Neumark-Sztainer et al.,1999). Therefore, the model posited a positive linkage

Adolescent Boys and Body Image 631

between BMI and weight concerns and a negative onewith muscularity concerns.

Developmental status as represented by grade levelin school was also included in the model. Grade levelwas predicted to be related positively to muscularity con-cerns because of age-related increases in the awarenessof the muscular ideal for the adult male body (McCrearyand Sasse, 2000) and in the efforts to build muscularity(McCabe and Ricciardelli, 2001).

The model also evaluated the hypothesis that weightand muscular concerns are embedded in distinct so-cial contexts. The appearance-related experiences withsame-gender friends were of particular interest becauseprevious research has verified that feedback from malefriends was related to body dissatisfaction (Ricciardelliand McCabe, 2001). One way in which adolescentsengage in “appearance training” is through appear-ance conversations with friends. These conversationsdirect attention to appearance-related issues, reinforcethe value and importance of appearance, and promotethe construction of appearance ideals. Indeed, girls andboys who have reported more frequent conversationswith their friends about appearance have also expressedgreater body dissatisfaction (Jones et al., 2004). Thisstudy examined two types of conversations: general ap-pearance and muscle-building. The frequency of gen-eral conversations about overall appearance was ex-pected to contribute positively to body dissatisfactionthrough weight concerns. Additionally, it was expectedthat boys who reported more frequent muscle-buildingconversations would endorse greater concern withmuscularity.

METHOD

Participants

A total of 128 adolescent boys from grades 8 (n =69; Mean age = 13.6 years) and 11 (n = 59; Mean age =16.6 years) were recruited from 2 middle schools and 1high school in a suburban district of a major northwestcity. Self-reports of ethnic background revealed that themajority of the students were White (69%) and Asian(16%).

Procedures

Students who provided both parental consent andstudent assent were included. The questionnaire was ad-ministered during school hours in a room provided in the

school. Only a portion of the scales from the survey isreported here.

Measures

Appearance Conversations With Friends

Five items assessed the frequency with which stu-dents reported talking with friends about their generalappearance. The scale included items such as “My friendsand I talk about what we can do to look our best,” and “Myfriends and I talk about how to look attractive.” Previousresearch has confirmed the internal reliability (α = 0.88),test–retest reliability (r = 0.55) and validity of the scale(Jones et al., 2004; Jones, 2004). Responses were ratedon a scale from “1” never to “5” very often and summedacross items (α = 0.84).

Muscle-Building Conversations

The frequency of talking about body building withfriends was assessed by 5 items that were created for thisstudy. The scale included items such as “I talk with myfriends about ways to build muscles,” and “My friends andI talk about building our muscles.” Responses were ratedon a scale from “1” never to “5” very often and summedacross items (α = 0.90).

Weight Concern

The 7-item Drive for Thinness scale from the EatingDisorder Inventory (Garner et al., 1983) assessed con-cern with weight and motivation for dieting. Boys ratedeach item on a 6-point scale. Items included “I think a lotabout wanting to be thinner,” and “I am terrified of gain-ing weight.” Because the first item in the original scale(I eat sweets and carbohydrates without feeling nervous)detracted considerably from the internal consistency, itwas dropped from consideration. The remaining 6 itemswere summed and formed a scale with excellent internalreliability (α = 0.92).

Muscularity Concern

The desire to gain muscle mass was evaluated by4 items from the Drive for Muscularity Scale (McCrearyand Sasse, 2000). The items were “I wish I were moremuscular,” “I think I would feel more confident if I hadmore muscle mass,” “I think that I would look betterif I gained 10 pounds in bulk,” and “I think I would

632 Jones and Crawford

Table I. Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables

2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean SD

1. Muscularity concern −.03 0.42 0.24 0.39 −.16 0.32 11.32 3.892. Weight concern 0.47 0.17 0.09 0.21 0.01 8.91 4.403. Body dissatisfaction 0.23 0.08 0.10 0.14 23.17 7.994. Appearance Conversations 0.41 −.13 0.08 7.57 3.155. Muscle-building conversations 0.12 0.31 11.17 5.056. BMI 0.20 22.49 4.407. Grade level

Note. Correlations above 0.17 are significant, at least p < 0.05.

feel stronger if I gained a little more muscle mass.”All four items loaded on the first factor that emergedin a recent analysis of the Drive for Muscularity Scale(McCreary et al., 2004). The 3 other items that definedthe muscularity-oriented factor in the McCreary et al.’svalidation study referred to evaluations of particular bodyparts and were not included because of their similarityto the body dissatisfaction scale. The selected items thusfocused on the general motivation for muscularity ratherthan activities or evaluations of particular body parts thatwere included in the original scale. Responses to the4 items were scored on a 5-point scale (“1” = disagreecompletely; “5” = agree completely) and summed acrossitems (α = 0.83).

Body Dissatisfaction

The Body Dissatisfaction Subscale from the Eat-ing Disorder Inventory (Garner et al., 1983) was usedto measure body image dissatisfaction. A total of 2of the original 9 items designed for girls (hips andthighs) were altered for the boys to assess their sat-isfaction with chest and bicep size. The selection ofthese specific body parts for the boys was based empir-ically on factor loadings for evaluating male body es-teem (Franzoi and Shields, 1984). Previous research hasdemonstrated that the modified scale has adequate inter-nal consistency (α = 0.80) and 1-year test–retest relia-bility (r = 0.57) (Jones, 2004). Responses were scoredon a 6-point scale (“Never” to “Always”) with higherscores indicating greater dissatisfaction with one’s body(α = 0.81).

Body Mass

From the students’ self-reported height and weight, abody mass index was computed using the formula, BodyMass Index (BMI) = kg/m2.

RESULTS

The descriptive statistics and zero-order correlationsamong the study variables are provided in Table I. Theoverall BMI (X = 22.49) was similar to levels reportedin other studies of adolescent boys (X = 23) (Neumark-Sztainer et al., 2002). In addition, participants were clas-sified according to sex and age specific growth chartsas either underweight (BMI ≤ 25th percentile), normalweight (BMI between 25th and 85th percentile), or at-risk/overweight (BMI ≥ 85th percentile) (Ogden et al.,2002). The majority of the boys (59%, n = 75) werewithin the normal range. However, 32% (n = 41) of thesample were either overweight or at-risk for being over-weight. Only 9% (n = 19) were in the underweight range.The percentage in the overweight category was remark-ably similar to recent reports for a Midwestern communitysample (31.2%) (Neumark-Sztainer et al., 2002) and a na-tional sample (30.5%) (Ogden et al., 2002).

Grade-level differences in the mean levels of thestudy variables listed in Table I were assessed in aseries of t-tests. Bonferroni’s correction was used toset the significance level at p < 0.01. Grade-level dif-ferences were evident only for Muscularity Concernsand Muscle-Building Conversations. The means pre-sented in Table II indicated that the older boys weremore likely to report talking about body building withtheir friends and to endorse higher levels of muscularityconcern.

Structural equation modeling (SEM) based on maxi-mum likelihood estimation (EQS, Bentler, 1992) was usedto test the hypothesized model as presented in Fig. 1. Theresults indicated a mediocre fit (χ2(4) = 11.31, p < .05,CFI = 0.956, AGFI = 0.85, RMSEA = 0.116). Exam-ination of the modification index suggested the modelcould be improved by adding a path from Muscle-BuildingConversations to Body Dissatisfaction. The addition ofthe path did lead to an improvement in the model indi-cators (χ2(3) = 6.33, p > 0.05, CFI = 0.980, AGFI =0.881, RMSEA = 0.090). The reduction in chi-square

Adolescent Boys and Body Image 633

Table II. Mean (and Standard Deviations) for Study Variables Demonstrating Grade Differences

Variable Mean level 95% CI p value

8th grade 11th gradeMuscularity concern 10.19 (3.85) 12.63 (3.47) −3.73/−1.15 0.0001Muscle-building conversations 9.76 (4.43) 12.81 (5.20) −4.73/−1.37 0.0001

was statistically significant, (χ2 (1) = 4.98, p < 0.05)confirming a significant improvement to the model. Therevised model accounted for 44% of the variance in BodyDissatisfaction.

The standardized parameter estimates for this revisedmodel are depicted in Fig. 2. The significant pathways in-dicate that elevated BMI and more frequent appearanceconversations with friends predicted heightened levelsof weight concerns. Furthermore, Muscularity Concernwas significantly greater among the boys who reportedmore frequent Muscle-Building Conversations with theirfriends, who had lower BMI, and were older. Muscular-ity and Weight Concerns each contributed unique vari-ance to the prediction of Body Dissatisfaction. Finally,there was a significant negative pathway linking Muscle-Building Conversations to Body Dissatisfaction indicat-ing that boys who more frequently talked about muscle

building with friends were more likely to have lower bodydissatisfaction.

The negative relationship between Muscle-BuildingConversations and Body Dissatisfaction stands in con-trast to the absence of a univariate relationship betweenthe two variables and is suggestive of a suppressor effect.Tabachnick and Fidell (1996) propose that a suppressor ef-fect is evident if either (1) the absolute value of the simplecorrelation is substantially smaller than the beta weight, or(2) the simple correlation and beta weight have oppositesigns (p. 165). Both conditions apply in the current case. Inorder to determine which other predictor in the model maybe suppressing the relationship between Muscle-BuildingConversations and Body Dissatisfaction, Tabachnick andFidell (1996) recommend that a “search” be conducted forthe suppressor variable by evaluating changes in regres-sion coefficients when other predictors are systematically

.31***

-.20**

.27***

.48*** -.25**

.48*** .25*

.21*

Body Dissatisfaction

Muscle Building Conversations

Grade Level

BMI

Muscularity Concern

Weight Concern

Appearance Conversations with Friends

Fig. 2. Final model for dual pathways predicting body dissatisfaction among adolescent boys.Significant standardized coefficients, ∗p < 0.05. ∗∗p < 0.01. ∗∗∗p < 0.001.

634 Jones and Crawford

left out of multiple regression analyses. We therefore rana series of multiple regressions that sequentially deletedone of the predictor variables. It was only the deletion ofMuscularity Concern from the multiple regression equa-tion that resulted in a substantial drop in the absolute betaweight (−.20 to −.07) between Muscle-Building Con-versations and Body Dissatisfaction. These results indi-cated that Muscularity Concern suppressed the relation-ship between Muscle-Building Conversations and BodyDissatisfaction.

DISCUSSION

This study contributes to the literature on body dis-satisfaction among adolescent boys by providing empiri-cal support for the importance of distinguishing betweenweight and muscularity concerns and for including BMIand peer appearance contexts as contributors to body dis-satisfaction. The results indicate that the development ofbody image among adolescent boys is not best representedby a singular pathway through weight concern to body dis-satisfaction as has been true for girls. Neither though isbody image among adolescent boys reduced to a singularpathway through muscularity concern. Rather the findingsconfirm that weight and muscularity concerns representdistinct pathways to body dissatisfaction.

One of the pathways to body dissatisfaction focuseson issues of weight. The boys who are heavier are morelikely to express concern about weight and dieting and toendorse greater body dissatisfaction. This positive lin-ear relationship between elevated adiposity, body dis-satisfaction, and a preoccupation with weight is similarto that reported for college men and women (Pingitoreet al., 1997) and adolescent girls and boys (McCabe andRicciardelli, 2001; Wertheim et al., 2001).

The other pathway to body dissatisfaction centers onissues of muscularity with linkages between BMI, Mus-cularity Concerns, and Body Dissatisfaction. The inverserelationship between BMI and Muscularity Concern in-dicates that it is not the boys with elevated BMI who areconcerned with muscularity, but it is the boys with lowerBMIs who want to improve their muscular build. Previ-ous research has reported an association between low BMIand muscle/weight-gaining behaviors (Neumark-Sztaineret al., 1999), but this study is among the first to confirm alinkage between BMI and adolescent boys’ concern withtheir muscularity.

The greater muscularity concern also appears to in-tensify with age and may reflect a developmental shiftin the awareness of the connection between masculin-ity, muscularity, and attractiveness among the older high

school boys (Edwards and Launder, 2000; McCreary andSasse, 2000). From a developmental perspective, theseresults also suggest that boys who are in the lower BMIrange may be reflecting their smaller status among class-mates who may be more physically developed, leadingthem to experience an increase in muscularity concernand body dissatisfaction.

It is important to note that the pattern of relationshipsclearly demonstrates that both lower BMI and higher BMIhave important implications for appearance concerns andbody image among adolescent boys. Indeed, the associa-tions of BMI with both Muscularity Concern and WeightConcern demonstrate the foundational role of BMI in theforging of the dual pathways. Given these results, it iscritical that BMI be included in future investigations ofbody dissatisfaction for boys as well as girls.

In addition to the dual pathways to body dissatisfac-tion, the pattern of results also suggests that distinct so-cial contexts are associated with weight and muscularityconcerns. The boys who report a peer context that morefrequently attends to and reinforces general appearanceconcerns are more likely to express greater preoccupationwith weight whereas the boys who talk with their friendsabout physical build and muscle-building activities aremore likely to express concern with muscularity. In bothinstances, the heightened concern is associated with bodydissatisfaction. Because the data are cross-sectional, thedirection of effect is not possible to determine. It could bethat the heightened attention and reinforcement affordedby the “appearance training” conversations increases theconcern with weight or muscular build and body dissat-isfaction. It is equally likely that boys with greater bodydissatisfaction are more likely to focus on appearanceissues and participate in conversations reflecting their in-dividual concerns. Future longitudinal research is neededto determine the pathway of influence.

Unexpectedly, a positive linkage emerged in the mul-tivariate analyses between Muscle-Building Conversa-tions and Body Dissatisfaction indicating that boys whoconversed about body building activities reported lessbody dissatisfaction. It appears that concern with mus-cularity masks the negative relationship between Muscle-Building Conversations and Body Dissatisfaction. Oncethe negative affect or anxiety associated with muscular-ity concern is controlled, talking about muscle buildingactivities is associated with body esteem in a positive di-rection. Although this result awaits replication, the findingcould indicate a connection between physical fitness andbody esteem (Tiggemann and Williamson, 2000) suchthat boys who are reporting body building conversationswith their friends are the ones who are also engagingin muscle building activities and subsequently evaluating

Adolescent Boys and Body Image 635

their physically fit and muscular bodies more positively.This finding suggests that future research should docu-ment boys’ muscle building activities as a way to investi-gate and unravel the complexity of the meaning of musclebuilding conversations for adolescent boys and their bodyimage.

There are additional limitations of this study that areimportant to note. Because the research was based oncross-sectional data, the causal direction of the relation-ships cannot be determined in this study. The evaluation ofthe model would benefit from longitudinal analyses thatcould help determine the direction of effects among thevariables. Further research is also needed to confirm theconstruct validity of muscle building conversations and togive greater specificity to characteristics of the conversa-tional partners and the dynamics of the peer conversations.

Muscularity as a contributor to male body imagehas recently received considerable attention. In this study,we did confirm an intensification of muscularity concernsamong older adolescent boys and those with lower BMI asa pathway to body dissatisfaction. At the same time, the re-sults also demonstrate the significance of weight concernsfor body dissatisfaction among adolescent boys. Indeed,given the increasing prevalence of overweight adolescents(Ogden et al., 2002), it is likely that weight concern willcontinue to be a primary issue associated with body dis-satisfaction for at least some adolescent boys. The evi-dence supports the need for both weight and muscularityconcern pathways to be included in continuing efforts tounderstand more fully the development of body imageamong adolescent boys.

REFERENCES

Cohane, G. H., and Pope, H. G., Jr. (2001). Body image in boys: Areview of the literature. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 29: 373–379.

Edwards, S., and Launder, C. (2000). Investigating muscularity concernsin male body image: Development of the Swansea MuscularityAttitudes Questionnaire. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 28: 120–124.

Field, A. E., Camargo, C. A., Taylor, C. B., Berkey, C. S., Roberts, S. B.,and Colditz, G. A. (2001). Peer, parent, and media influences onthe development of weight concerns and frequent dieting amongpreadolescent and adolescent girls and boys. Pediatrics 107: 54–60.

Fisher, E., Dunn, M., Thompson, J. K. (2002). Social comparison andbody image: An investigation of body comparison processes us-ing multidimensional scaling. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 21: 566–579.

Franzoi, S. L., and Shields, S. S. (1984). The body esteem scale: Multi-dimensional structure and sex differences in a college population.J. Pers. Assess. 48: 173–178.

Garner, D. M., Olmstead, M. P., and Polivy, J. (1983). Developmentand validation of a multidimensional eating disorder inventory foranorexia nervosa and bulimia. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 2: 15–34.

Jones, D. C. (2004). Body image among adolescent girls and boys: Alongitudinal study. Dev. Psychol. 40: 823–835

Jones, D. C., Vigfusdottir, T. H., and Lee, Y. (2004). Body image and theappearance culture among adolescent girls and boys: An examina-

tion of friend conversations, peer criticism, appearance magazines,and the internalization of appearance ideals. J. Adolesc. Res. 19:323–339.

Labre, M. P. (2002). Adolescent boys and the muscular male body ideal.J. Adolesc. Health 30: 233–242.

Leit, R. A., Gray, J. J., and Pope, H. G. (2001). Cultural expectationsof muscularity in men: The evolution of playgirl centerfolds. Int. J.Eat. Disord. 29: 90–93.

Lewinsohn, P. M., Seeley, J. R., Moerk, K. C., and Striegel-Moore, R. H.(2002). Gender differences in eating disorder symptoms in youngadults. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 32: 426–440.

McCabe, M. P., and Ricciardelli, L. A. (2001). Parent, peer, and mediainfluences on body image and strategies to both increase and de-crease body size among adolescent boys and girls. Adolescence 36:225–240.

McCreary, D. R., and Sasse, D. K. (2000). An exploration of the drivefor muscularity in adolescent boys and girls. J. Am. Coll. Health48: 297–304.

McCreary, D. R., Sasse, D. K., Saucier, D. M., and Dorsch, K. D. (2004).Measuring the Drive for Muscularity: Factorial validity of the Drivefor Muscularity Scale in men and women. J. Am. Coll. Health 48:297–304.

Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., Falkner, N. H., Beuhring, T., andResnick, M. D. (1999). Sociodemographic and personal charac-teristics of adolescents engaged in weight loss and weight/musclegain behaviors: Who is doing what? Prev. Med. 28: 40–50.

Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., Hannan, P. J., and Croll, J. (2002).Overweight status andeating patterns among adolescents: Wheredo youths stand in comparison with the Healthy People 2010 Ob-jectives? Am. J. Public Health 92: 844–851.

Ogden, C. L., Flegal, K. M., Carroll, M. D., and Johnson, C. L. (2002).Prevalence and trends in overweight among US children and ado-lescents, 1999–2000. JAMA 288: 1728–1732.

Olivardia, R., Pope, H. G., and Hudson, J. I. (2000). Muscle dysmorphiain male weightlifters: A case-control study. Am. J. Psychiatr. 157:1291–1296.

Paxton, S. J., Wertheim, E. H., Gibbons, K., Szmukler, G. I., Hillier,L., and Petrovich, J. L. (1991). Body image satisfaction, dietingbeliefs, and weight loss behaviors in adolescent girls and boys.J. Youth Adolesc. 20: 361–379.

Pingitore, R., Spring, B., and Garfield, D. (1997). Gender differences inbody satisfaction. Obes. Res. 5: 402–409.

Pope, H. G., Gruber, A. J, Choi, P., Olivardia, R., and Phillips, K. A.(1997). Muscle dysmorphia: An underrecognized form of bodydysmorphic disorder. Psychosomatics 38: 548–557.

Pope, H. G., Olivardia, R., Gruber, A., and Borowiecki, J. (1999). Evolv-ing ideals of male body image as seen through action toys. Int. J.Eat. Disord. 26: 65–72.

Rauste-vonWright, M. (1989). Body image satisfaction in adolescentgirls and boys: A longitudinal study. J. Youth Adolesc. 18: 71–83.

Ricciardelli, L. A., and McCabe, M. P. (2001). Self-esteem and negativeaffect as moderators of sociocultural influences on body dissat-isfaction, strategies to decrease weight, and strategies to increasemuscles among adolescent boys and girls. Sex Roles 44: 189–207.

Ricciardelli, L. A., and McCabe, M. P. (2003). Sociocultural and indi-vidual influences on musclegain and weight loss strategies amongadolescent boys and girls. Psychol. Schools 40: 209–224.

Ricciardelli, L. A., McCabe, M. P., Holt, K. E., and Finemore, J. (2003).A biopsychosocial model for understanding body image and bodychange strategies among children. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 24: 475–495.

Ricciardelli, L. A., and McCabe, M. P. (2004). A biopsychosocial modelof disordered eating and the pursuit of muscularity in adolescentboys. Psychologic. Bull. 130: 179–205.

Smolak,L., Levine, M. P., and Thompson, J. K. (2001). The use of theSociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire withmiddle school boys and girls. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 29: 216–223.

Stice, E., and Whitenton, K. (2002). Risk factors for body dissatisfactionin adolescent girls: A longitudinal investigation. Dev. Psychol. 38:669–678.

636 Jones and Crawford

Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics(3rd edn.). HarperCollins, New York.

Thompson, J. K., Heinberg, L. J., Altabe, M., and Tantleff-Dunn, S.(1999). Exacting beauty: Theory, assessment, and treatment ofbody image disturbances. American Psychological Association,Washington, DC.

Tiggemann, M., and Williamson, S. (2000). The effect of exercise onbody satisfaction and self-esteem as a function of gender and age.Sex Roles 43: 119–127.

Wertheim, E. H., Koerner, J., and Paxton, S. J. (2001). Longitudinal pre-dictors of restrictive eating and bulimic tendencies in three differentgrade groups of adolescent girls. J. Youth Adolesc. 30: 69–81.