investigation of body comparison among adolescent girls

Investigation of Body Comparison Among Adolescent Girls1

H t L E N A K. SCHUTZ2 AND SUSAN J. PAXTON The Unrversrv of Melbourne

Melbourne. VIC toriu, Austrulru

ELEANOR H. WERTHEIM La Trobe Universiiy

Melboiirne, Victoriu. Austruliu

Grade differences in appearance and nonappearance social comparisons, and targets for body comparison were examined in adolescent girls. A model describing potential contrib- utors to, and consequences of, body comparison tendency was examined. Girls ( n = 545) completed measuring social comparisons, targets for comparisons. dieting in response to comparisons, body attitudes, eating patterns, psychological variables, height, and weight. Appearance and nonappearance social comparisons increased with age. Girls reported comparing their bodies most frequently with peers and fashion models. Body comparison tendency was significantly predicted by: importance of thinness, internalization of sociocultural ideal, friend concern with weight, body image instability, competitiveness, grade, public self-consciousness, perfectionism, and family concern with weight. Predictors of dieting in response to body comparison were also explored.

Substantial research has documented the high prevalence of body dissatisfaction and disturbed eating behaviors among adolescent girls (e.g., Grigg, Bowman, & Redman, 1996; Paxton et al., I99 1). These are of concern because of their consistent associations with a range of adverse physical and psychological consequences, including intense psychological distress; nutritional, metabolic, endocrine, and physiological problems; weight gain; and the development of eating disorders (Gibbons, Wertheim, Paxton, Petrovich, & Szmukler, 1993; National Institute of Health Technology Assessment Panel, 1992; O’Dea, 1995; Wilson, 1993). In order to formulate programs that might assist in prevcnting or

‘This research was conducted as part of the first author’s doctoral dissertation at the University of Melbourne. Assessnicnt instruments were developed for this research as part of the first author’s dissertation and are available upon request. The study was supported by a grant from the Australian Research Council. Thanks are gratefully extended to Jenny Anderson and Tracey Holt for their assis- tance with data collection, and to Philip Smith for his helpful statistical advice.

ZCorrespondence concerning this article should be addressed to Hclcna K. Schutz or Susan J. Paxton, Psychology Department, La Trobe Univcrsity, Melbourne, Victoria 3086, Australia. E-mail: susan.paxton(li)latrobe.edu.au

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2002, 32, 9, pp. 1906-1 937. Copyright 0 2002 by V. H. Winston 23 Son, Inc. All rights reserved.

BODY COMPARISON AMONG GIRLS 1907

alleviating body dissatisfaction and dieting behaviors, it is important to gain a better understanding of factors that generate and perpetuate body dissatisfaction and disturbed eating behaviors.

Body comparison, defined as the tendency to compare one’s body with others, is a factor that has received increasing interest in recent years as a potential trigger of body dissatisfaction and dieting attempts (Heinberg & Thompson, 1992a, 1992b; Irving, 1990; Richins, 1991; Stormer & Thompson, 1996; Striegel- Moore, McAvay, & Rodin, 1986; Thompson & Heinberg, 1993; Wertheim, Paxton, Schutz, & Muir, 1997). Body comparison derives from the theoretical postulates of social comparison theory (SCT; Festinger, 1954). Social comparison involves a general process of comparing qualities of the self to the same qualities in other individuals. In body comparison, the specific quality focused on is the individual’s body or aspects of the body (e.g., weight, size, shape). Four central postulates of the SCT are: (a) that individuals have a drive to evaluate their opinions and abilities for the purpose of self-evaluation; (b) that, in the absence of physical realities or standards of comparison, individuals seek to compare their opinions and abilities with those of others; (c) that people prefer comparisons with similar others; and (d) that people have a unidirectional drive upward such that they seek comparisons with slightly superior others in order to obtain information on how to improve themselves.

Since the SCT was first proposed, a number of aspects of the theory have been refined and expanded. Research has demonstrated that comparisons on personal traits and circumstances also might occur (Wood, 1989), for reasons other than self-evaluation (Wheeler, 1966; Wills, 198 1) and with others who are dissimilar as well as similar (e.g., Gilbert, Giesler, & Morris, 1995; Morse & Gergen, 1970). Festinger’s (1 954) assumption of the chosen and conscious nature of comparisons also has been questioned (Brickman & Bulman, 1977; Gilbert et al., 1995; Goethals, 1986). It has been shown that comparisons can be automatic (Morse & Gergen, 1970) and take place with others who are salient or available, or with whom one has interacted frequently or recently, whether or not one wants to (Gilbert et al., 1995; Goethals, 1986; Morse & Gergen, 1970; Wood, 1989).

In several studies on college women, social comparison in the body shape domain has been found to be strongly associated with body dissatisfaction (Heinberg & Thompson, 1992a, 1992b; Stormer & Thompson, 1996; Thompson & Heinberg, 1993), feeling fat (Striegel-Moore et al., 1986), and bulimia and drive for thinness scores (Stormer & Thompson, 1996), although the causal direction underlying these associations is currently unclear. Experimental studies on adolescents and college-aged women have found that forced social comparisons with media images of women result in lower self-evaluations of physical attractiveness (Irving, 1990; Richins, 1991) and more dissatisfaction with one’s appearance following exposure to television images (Heinberg & Thompson, 1995). Consistent with Festinger’s (1954) postulate of the preference for comparison

1908 SCHUTZ ET AL.

with similar others, college-aged women have been found to rate peers as being more important for appearance-related comparisons than fashion models, family members, or general members of the United States population (Heinberg & Thompson, 1992b), and also to be more affected by comparisons with similar as opposed to dissimilar others (Heinberg & Thompson, 1992a). Women with higher dispositional levels of weight and eating disturbance have been found to be affected more negatively by the impact of body comparisons (Hamilton & Waller, 1993; Heinberg & Thompson, 1995).

A number of studies to date conducted on adolescent and pre-adolescent samples also support the significance of social comparisons among younger samples. Martin and Kcnnedy (1993) examined the developmental tendency of 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-grade females to compare themselves to models in advertisemcnts. Thcy found a significant incrcase in frequcncy of comparison with fashion models between Grades 4 and 8, and a nonsignificant trend between Grades 8 and 12. Thcy also found that girls who were lower in self-esteem or who perceived themselves as unattractive were more likely to compare their bodies with fashion models. Consistent with the findings of Richins ( 1 99 I ) , it was found that even one- time exposures to highly attractive advertising models raised appearance comparison standards among 8th and 12th graders. Contrary to the findings of Irving ( I 990) and Richins ( 1991), however, self-perceptions of physical attractiveness were not affected by exposure to advertising among the girls in this study.

Two further studies conducted by our research group (Paxton, Schutz, Wertheim, & Muir, 1999; Wertheim et al., 1997) also suggested the value of examining the relevance of body comparison among adolescent girls. In a sclf-report questionnaire survey of Grade 10 girls (Paxton et al., 1999), high responses to the item “How often do you compare your body to that of others?” werc found to predict body image dissatisfaction, dietary restraint, and the use of extreme weight-loss behaviors, after body mass index (BMI), psychological factors, and family factors had been taken into account. In an interview study, body comparisons with peers were frequently referred to as causing distress and con- ccrns about whether “1 should diet too” (Wcrtheim et al., 1997, p. 348).

Much, however, still remains unknown about the nature of body comparison and more general social comparisons across the adolescent years. A better understanding of the nature, extent, and impact of body-comparison processes is clearly important in order to inform programs aimed at preventing or alleviating poor body imagc and disturbed eating patterns among adolescent girls. Issues of particular relevancc relate to how the frequency of body comparison changes with age, with whom do adolescent girls compare, the extent to which body comparisons lead to dieting, and charactcristics of girls who compare their bodies. Thcse questions form a framework for the present investigation.

Previous researchers (e.g., Martin & Kennedy, 1993; Renick & Harter, 1989) have suggested that, with development, children will increasingly use social


comparison processes to evaluate themselves, and findings by Renick and Harter and by Martin and Kennedy support the suggestion that social comparison tendencies increase with age from childhood to early adolescence (Grade 8). What happens between early and middle adolescence, however, is largely unclear. From the point of view of prevention and intervention, an understanding of the development of body comparisons across age (particularly across this critical time period) is important in order to work out when and how to best focus intervention efforts. This led to the first aim of the present study, which was to examine how social comparisons (appearance-related and nonappearance-related) would vary with age among early and middle adolescent females. In line with previous findings in children and adolescents (Martin & Kennedy, 1993; Renick & Harter, 1989), it was hypothesized that social comparisons would increase with age.

A second issue that remains to be clarified concerns with whom adolescent girls compare themselves. Festinger’s (1 954) similarity hypothesis predicts that adolescent girls prefer to engage in comparison with similar others, predicting decreasing frequency of comparison with increasingly more dissimilar comparison targets. Research has offered some support for Festinger’s proposal of the preference for similar as opposed to dissimilar others (Heinberg & Thompson, 1992b; Miller, Turnbull, & McFarland, 1988) and also of the greater impact of comparisons with similar (as opposed to dissimilar) others (e.g., Heinberg & Thompson, 1992a; Tesser, Millar, & Moore, 1988). Precisely whom adolescent girls would regard as being most similar, however, is unclear. Heinberg and Thompson (1992b) found that college-aged women rated peers as more important targets for appearance-related comparisons than family members or celebri- ties. However, not all findings are consistent with a similarity hypothesis. For example, it seems unlikely that when younger adolescents compare themselves to older fashion models, it is because they see the models as very similar to themselves. An alternative explanation, that body comparison takes place for the purpose of self-improvement (Wood, 1989), might better explain such findings. Under these circumstances, girls might choose older fashion models as comparison targets to guide their aspirations. Heinberg and Thompson (1 992b) suggested that it would be useful to examine appearance-related comparison developmen- tally to determine the relative importance of different comparison targets among girls of different ages.

In the present study how social comparisons change with age will be examined. The frequency of comparison with immediate peers, fashion models, and family members will also be explored as well as the frequency of considering or beginning dieting as a result of such comparisons. The following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1. Social comparisons will increase with age in adolescent girls.

191 0 SCHUTZ ET AL.

Hypothesis 2. Adolescent girls will compare their bodies more frequently with immediate peers than with fashion models or family members.

Hypothesis 3. Within the category of immediate peers, frequency of comparison will be greater with friends than with more distal peers (other girls and popular girls).

Hypothesis 4. Adolescent girls will be more likely to begin dieting in response to body comparisons with immediate peers than with fashion models or family members.

Hypothesis 5 . Within the category of immediate peers, frequency of beginning dieting will be greater with friends than with more distal peers (other girls and popular girls).

Hypothesis 6. The frequency of body comparison and the frequency of beginning dieting as a result of comparison will be compared between same-gender family members versus immediate peers; same-gender family members versus fashion models; and sisters versus mothers.

To date, very little is known about factors associated with body-comparison tendencies, aside from the consistent positive correlations found between body comparison, body dissatisfaction, and disturbed eating behaviors (Heinberg & Thompson, 1992a, 1992b, 1995; Stormer & Thompson, 1996; Striegel-Moore et al., 1986; Thompson & Heinberg, 1993) and Martin and Kennedy’s (1993) finding of a negative relationship between body comparison and evaluation of physical attractiveness or self-esteem. From a theoretical point of view, understanding associated factors is an important first step suggesting possible path- ways between body-comparison tendencies and body dissatisfaction and disturbed eating. From an applied perspective this information could inform primary and secondary or targeted prevention interventions. In the former, age- appropriate information and intervention could aim to prevent the development of unhealthy body comparison; while in the latter, those already engaged in high levels of comparison could be provided with interventions to reduce maladaptive cognitive styles.

This study is the first stage of a two-stage project in which a large number of variables hypothesized to be related to body-comparison tendencies are being examined. This first stage includes a cross-section examination of associations between body-comparison tendencies and eating/weight-related characteristics and general personality characteristics that are hypothesized to either predict or

BODY COMPARISON AMONG GIRLS 191 1

Appearance concerns

Appearance orientation

Importance of thinness

Public self-consciousness

Sociocultural

internalization

characteristics

Body image instability

Body Mass Index

General

psychopathology

Anxiety

Social anxiety

Depression

Self-concept instability

Low self-esteem

Comparison

li

Experience of

Body anxiety

Body dissatisfaction

characteristics

Competitiveness

Perfectionism

Social-environmental

factors

Family concern with

weight

Friend concern with

weight

Figure 1 . Factors hypothesized to predict and result from body comparison.

Eating

behaviors

Dietary restraint

Binge eating

Extreme weight

loss behaviors

be consequences of body comparison. The second stage, to be reported later, will include longitudinal data on predictors of change over time so that potentially causal paths between body comparison and associated factors can be examined. Figure 1 presents a model of variables hypothesized to predict and result from body comparison.

1912 SCHUTZ ET AL.

The first variables considered are those hypothesized to contribute to the tendency to compare one’s body with others. In his SCT, Festinger (1954) suggested that comparisons arose out of a need for a person to arrive at an accurate assessment of his or her opinions and abilities. On the basis of this proposition, one could hypothesize that any factor that increased an individual’s general self- uncertainty could also increase his or her interest in obtaining social comparison information. Low self-esteem, depression, anxiety, unstable self-perceptions, and unstable perceptions of body image are variables that, on this basis, could be hypothesized to be related to body-comparison tendencies (e.g., Thompson, Heinberg, Altabe, & Tantleff-Dunn, 1999). It might be further hypothesized that any factor that increased the general salience or perceived importance of weight and shape for individuals could also increase their motivation or drive to compare their bodies in order to determine their relative standing in the weight and shape domain. Variables that could be included in this category include both individual physical or personality characteristics that increase the general salience of weight and shape for an individual (e.g., BMI, level of concern with appearance, preoccupation with appearance), extent of internalization of broader sociocultural attitudes to thinness, perceptions of outside social-environmental influences (e.g., perceived friend and family interest in weight and dieting), and teasing about weight. Other personality characteristics might also be relevant. An individual’s general level of self-evaluative concerns or sensitivity to the reactions and opinions of others might also increase an individual’s likelihood of feeling pressure to conform to social ideals of attractiveness. Such variables could include public self-consciousness and social approval seeking. Perfectionism and competitiveness are traits associated with a heightened self-evaluative drive, and to this extent, these could also be predicted to be associated with social comparison tendencies. Finally, as previously described, there might be developmental changes in body comparison related to age.

The second set of variables considered are those hypothesized to be consequences of body comparison: body dissatisfaction, body anxiety, dietary restraint, extreme weight-loss behaviors, and binge eating. It is proposed that body comparison that leads to negative evaluations of body size will result in negative body-image attitudes and behavioral attempts to lose weight. This is consistent with Stormer and Thompson’s ( 1996) proposal that body dissatisfaction and disturbed eating patterns result from body comparison, and also with several studies to date that have found associations between body comparison, measures of body dissatisfaction, and disturbed eating ( Heinberg & Thompson, 1992a, 1992b, 1995; Stormer & Thompson, 1996; Striegel-Moore et al., 1986; Thompson & Heinberg, 1993).

The final aims of the study were to explore aspects of the model presented in Figure 1. To examine associations between body-comparison tendencies and the variables hypothesized to be related to these tendencies, univariate associations


between variables proposed to contribute to body-comparison tendencies and body-comparison tendencies themselves were examined first. Next, in order to identify the strongest predictors of body comparison, a stepwise regression was performed. Finally, qualitative research has suggested that body comparison serves as a trigger to body dissatisfaction and dieting behaviors (Wertheim et al., 1997). However, factors that are associated with and that predict girls’ likelihood of dieting as a result of body comparison are not known. In addition to attributes and attitudes, if a body comparison contributes to a negative conclu- sion and consequent body dissatisfaction in a highly valued domain, it might be more likely that dieting would result. This model predicts body comparison to be an important risk factor for dieting and disordered eating behaviors generally. However, in order to explore as closely as possible dieting that was triggered by comparison, in the present study, a measure of dieting as a result of comparison was developed and used as the criterion variable in a stepwise regression analysis.

In summary, the present study has four main aims: (a) to examine if appearance- and nonappearance-related social comparisons increase with age among early and middle adolescent girls; (b) to compare the frequency of body comparison and dieting in response to comparison between immediate peers, fashion models, and family members; (c) to examine correlates of body-comparison tendencies; and (d) to identify predictors of body-comparison tendencies and predictors of dieting as a result of body comparison among adolescent girls.

Method

Participants and Procedure

A sample of over 500 participants was recruited in order to be able to include the full range of variables hypothesized to be related to body-comparison tendencies and to cross-validate findings obtained using the stepwise regression proce- dures planned as the fourth aim of the study. Participants were 159 girls in Grade 7 ( M = 12.82 years), 210 girls in Grade 8 ( M = 13.70 years), and 174 girls in Grade 10 ( M = 15.75 years). Grades 7 and 8 were selected in order to assess girls during the most usual time of transition into adolescence, while Grade 10 was selected as a time in which girls are typically well established in adolescence. Data were collected in six schools representing a range of geographic and socio- economic status areas in metropolitan Melbourne, Australia, and included four coeducational state schools and two girls’ state schools. After obtaining voluntary informed consent from both students and parents, questionnaires were completed in a 60 to 80 min class under the supervision of the first author and trained assistants. Demographic questions included age and whether or not participants had same-gender and opposite-gender siblings.

191 4 SCHUTZ ET AL.

Measures

Frequency of Bod,v Coinparison and Dieting in Response to Body Comparison

Three questions asked each participant if she would describe herself as someone who compared her body with those of others; if comparing her body with others had ever made her feel as if maybe she ought to diet; and if comparing her body with others had ever led her to actually begin dieting. Responses were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very @en).

Bod,v Image Attitudes and General Concern With Appearance

The appearance orientation subscale of the Cash Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ; Brown, Cash, & Mikulka, 1990) assessed extent of cognitive-behavioral investment in one’s appearance (appearance orientation). Participants with higher scores place greater importance on their appearance and engage in more appearance-managing behaviors. Past research has supported the reliability and validity of this instrument (Brown et al., 1990). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was 3 5 .

Body dissatisfaction. Body dissatisfaction was assessed using the feeling-fat subscale of the Body Attitudes Questionnaire (BAQ; Ben-Tovim & Walker, 1991), with established reliability and validity (Byrnes, Burns, & Bauer, 1995; Dower, 1996). The scale contains self-referent statements reflecting feelings of overall fatness on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha in the present study was .90.

Importance of thinness. The Importance of Thinness scale is a four-item scale developed for the present research, which assesses the importance that participants place on being thin. The scale asks participants to rate on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (extreme& like me) how much items such as “Trying to be slimmer is pretty important to me” apply to them. A factor analysis indicated that all items in the scale loaded on a single factor, with all item- total correlations exceeding .70. The internal consistency of the scale was high as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .89. Support for the construct validity of the scale came from a .83 correlation with the drive for thinness subscale of the Eat- ing Disorder lnventory (EDI; Garner & Olmstead, 1983), and a .79 correlation with the restraint subscale of the Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (DEBQ; Van Strien, Frijters, Bergers, & Delfares, 1986).

Physical appearance anxiety. The weight subscale of the Physical Appear- ance State Anxiety scale (Reed, Thompson, Brannick, & Sacco, 1991) evaluated current anxiety reported about eight weight-related body sites, with degree of anxiety rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (almost always). The reliability and validity of this instrument has been found to be high (Reed et al., 1991). Cronbach’s alpha in the present study was .95.


Public self-consciousness. The widely used public self-consciousness subscale of Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss’ ( 1975) Self-Consciousness scale (Scheier & Carver, 1985) was used to assess public self-consciousness. This scale assesses “the tendency to think about those aspects of the self that are matters of public display, qualities of the self from which impressions are formed in other people’s eyes” (Scheier & Carver, 1985, p. 687). Items are scored on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all like me) to 3 (very like me). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was 29.

Sociocultural attitudes toward thinness. The internalization subscale of the Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire (SATAQ-I; Heinberg, Thompson, & Stormer, 1995) assessed extent of internalization of sociocultural attitudes toward thinness (sociocultural internalization). This eight- item subscale has been used previously with success on college undergraduate samples (e.g., Heinberg & Thompson, 1995). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .90.

Perception ofbeing teased about weight. Perception of having been teased about weight was assessed using the weight-teasing frequency subscale of the Perception of Teasing scale (Thompson, Cattarin, Fowler, & Fisher, 1995) with established reliability and validity (Lunner et al., 2000; Thompson et al., 1995). This six-item scale is rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very open). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .95.

Stability of bodv image. The Stability of Body Image scale is a four-item scale that was developed for the present study. The scale is based on Rosenberg’s Stability of Self scale (Rosenberg, 1965; but adapted for the body domain) and assesses the extent to which a person experiences fluctuating views or opinions about his or her body (body image instability). A sample item from this scale is “My feelings about my body change a lot from one day to the next.” Items are scored on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (neverhot at all) to 5 (very oflenl strongly agree). High scores reflect high body image instability. A single factor emerged from a factor analysis conducted on items in this scale, with all item- total correlations exceeding .69. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .90. Support for the validity of the scale was provided by a .58 correlation with the weight subscale of the Physical Appearance Trait Anxiety scale (Reed et al., 1991).

Eating Patterns

Binge eating was assessed using the bulimia subscale of the widely used ED1 (Garner & Olmstead, 1983), for which items are rated on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (always). This subscale has been found to be reliable and valid in nonclinical samples when scores are based on untransformed responses, with the most negative response receiving a score of 1, and the most symptomatic

191 6 SCHUTZ ET AL.

response scoring 6 (Schoemaker, Van Strien, & Van Der Staak, 1994). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .80.

Weight-loss behaviors. The Extreme Weight Loss Behaviors scale (Paxton et al., 1991), with demonstrated reliability in adolescents (Banasiak, Wertheim, Koerner, & Voudouris, 2000), consists of ratings of frequency of use of six weight- loss strategies: fasting, crash dieting, skipping meals, vomiting, use of laxatives, and use of diuretics (fluid tablets) using a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (duily). Because frequency of use of laxatives and fluid tablets was low, and a factor analysis indicated that the remaining four items loaded on a single factor in this study, the items crash dieting, fasting, vomiting, and skipping meals were combined into a single scale. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .75.

Dietary restraint. The restraint subscale of the DEBQ (Van Strien et al., 1986) measured degree of concern with restricting and attempting to regulate weight and eating behavior. Items are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very oficn), with high scores reflecting high levels of dietary restraint. This subscale has high construct validity and internal reliability in adolescents (Banasiak et al., 2000; Laessle, Tuschl, Kotthaus, & Pirke, 1989; Wardle & Beaks, 1986). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .94.

Bodv-Comparison und Social-Comparison Measures

Physicul Appeurance Comparison Scale. The weight and shape subscale of the revised Physical Appearance Comparison scale (PACS; Thompson et al., 1999) assessed weight- and shape-related body comparisons. Participants rated on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (ulways) how often they compare various weight- and shape-related parts of their bodies. This scale has been the most widely used scale to assess body-comparison tendencies and has been found to be a reliable and valid measure (Thompson et a]., 1999). In the present study, Cron- bach’s alpha was .95.

Social Comparison Questionnaire. The Social Comparison Questionnaire is a series of items designed for the present study to assess the frequency of both body and more general comparison tendencies and targets for body comparisons. Questions ask the frequency with which individuals compare themselves with others in appearance and nonappearance domains (school marks, attractiveness, clothing, fitness, thinness, general abilities); their frequency of comparison with eight different comparison targets (friends, other girls, popular girls, brothers, sisters, mother, father, fashion models), and their frequency of dieting in response to comparison with eight different targets (friends, other girls, popular girls, brothers, sisters, mother, father, fashion models). Responses were rated on a 5 - point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 ( v e y qften). Cronbach’s alpha for comparison domains was 3 7 ; for comparison targets was 3 0 ; and for dieting in response to comparison targets was .84.


Psychological and Personality Measures

Anxiety and depression. The trait component of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983) has been used extensively for the assessment of anxiety in both research and clinical practice, with many studies supporting its validity and reliability (Spielberger et al., 1983). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .88. The short form of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, Rial, & Rickels, 1974) assessed depression. This scale correlates .88 with the long form (Beck et al., 1974), which has demonstrated reliability and validity in adolescents (Teri, 1982). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was 3 6 .

Self-esteem. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Inventory (Rosenberg, 1965) assessed general feelings of self-worth. Items are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). High scores reflect high self- esteem. The reliability and validity of this instrument in adolescents are well established (Wylie, 1989). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .84. A slightly modified version of Rosenberg’s Stability of Self scale (Rosenberg, 1965; Simmons, Rosenberg, & Rosenberg, 1973) was used to assess unstable self-perceptions. Minor modifications were made to the wording of the scale to make it more acceptable to adolescents of the 1990s, and item ranges for the five items were adapted from a Guttman scaling to a universal 5-point scoring system, resulting in a range of possible scores from 5 to 20. Previous researchers using the scale have made similar modifications to enhance the scale’s suitability for contemporary adolescent samples (e.g., included Alasker & Olweus, 1986). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .90.

Competitiveness. Competitiveness was assessed using a five-item version of the seven-item competitiveness subscale of the Multifactorial Achievement Moti- vation scale (Cassidy & Lynn, 1989) with established reliability and validity. Items 4 and 5 of this scale were omitted as they substantially reduced the overall reliability of the total scale. Cronbach’s alpha for the shortened scale was .76.

Perfectionism. The perfectionism subscale of the ED1 (Garner & Olmsted, 1983) is a six-item subscale that has been used widely to assess attitudes associated with eating disturbance among both clinical and nonclinical populations (Garner, 1991). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .83.

Social anxiety. The social anxiety subscale of Fenigstein et a1.k (1975) widely used Self-Consciousness Scale (Scheier & Carver, 1985) assesses “a sense of apprehensiveness over being evaluated by the other persons in one’s social con- text, or doubt about being able to create adequate self-presentations” (Scheier & Carver, 1985, pp. 687-688). High scores reflect high social anxiety. In the present study, Item 4 of the subscale (“It’s easy for me to talk to strangers”) was omitted, as it was poorly associated with the remainder of items in the scale (r = .26). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha for the shortened scale was .78.

1918 SCHUTZ ET AL.

Sociul approval. Need for social approval was assessed using the five positively worded items from the need for social approval subscale of the Martin- Larsen Achievement Motivation scale (Martin, 1984). This scale measures the desire to please others and to avoid rejection. Only the positively worded items of this scale (Items 2, 3,4,5, and 9) were used as inclusion of the negatively worded items substantially reduced the overall reliability of the scale. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha for the shortened scale was .76.

Funiily, Friend, und Peer Meusures

Perceived. jumily preoccupation with weight and dieting. Extent of perceived family preoccupation with weight and dieting was assessed using the Perceived Family Preoccupation With Weight and Dieting scale, which was developed for this research. This nine-item scale assesses the frequency of a variety of different manifestations of weight and dieting preoccupation (e.g., talk about weight and shape, actual dieting behavior, general importance and level of awareness among family membcrs of one another’s weight and shape) and was rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very qfien). A sample item from this scale is “How often does your family talk about weight or dieting?” High scores reflect high perceived levels of weight and dieting preoccupation among family members. Itenis in the scale loaded on a single factor with a Cronbach’s alpha of .87. The lowest item-total correlation for the scale was for the item assessing skipping meals ( . 35 ) , with all other item-total correlations exceeding S 3 .

Perceived friend preoccuputinn with weight and dieting. The Perceived Friend Preoccupation With Weight and Dieting scale is a parallel measure to the family measure described previously and was newly developed for this research. Again, items in the scale loaded on a single factor with all item-total correlations exceeding .52. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .87.

Dieting in response to comparison. The Dieting in Response to Comparison was an eight-item scale developed for this research to measure the extent of being influenced to consider or initiate dieting as a result of body comparison with friends and peers. A sample item from the scale is “Have dieting attempts by friends or other girls at school ever made you feel as if maybe you should diet or lose weight‘?’’ Items were scored on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (ulways), with high scores reflecting high levels of considering or beginning dieting in response to body comparisons. Support for the internal consistency of the scale was confirmed by a single factor structure (all item-total correlations exceeding .74) and a high Cronbach’s alpha of .95. Support for the validity of the scale was obtained from a .82 correlation with the ED1 drive for thinness subscale (Garner, 1991), a .74 correlation with the restraint subscale of the DEBQ (Van Strien et al., I986), and a .73 correlation with Thompson’s Body Comparison scale (Thompson et al., 1999). Further, this scale was significantly correlated


with the three single items assessing frequency of body comparison ( r = .4 I), body comparison having made you feel you ought to diet or lose weight (r = .88), and body comparison actually leading to dieting (r = 3 7 ) .

Body Mass Index

Weight and height were measured, and BMI (Keys, Fidanza, Karvonen, Kimura, & Taylor, 1972) was calculated (kg/mz).

Additional Scale Included as a Validity Check om Newly Developed Scales

The drive for thinness subscale of the ED1 (EDI-DT; Garner & Olmstead, 1983) was included in order to test for the construct validity of newly developed measures. Untransformed scores (1 to 6) were summed as is appropriate for nonclinical samples (Schoemaker et al., 1994). Cronbach’s alpha for the EDI-DT was 3 5 .

Test-Retest Relia hility

Test-retest data were collected from separate samples of Grade 10 girls (A4 = 15.59, SD = 0.45) on measures for which such data were not available previously. Three-week test-retest correlations were as follows: appearance orientation, r =

.90, n = 106; BAQ feeling fat, r = .96, n = 106; importance of thinness, r = .84, n = 266; body anxiety, r = .90, n = 138; public self-consciousness, r = .84, n = 106; sociocultural internalization, r = .88, n = 138; teasing, r = 39, n = 138; stability of body image, r = .8 1, n = 234. EDI-bulimia, r = 3 7 , n = 106; PACS body comparison, r = .78, n = 138; Social Comparison Questionnaire (SCQ)-comparison domains, r = 3 7 , n = 141; SCQ-comparison targets, r = 32, n = 129; SCQ- dieting in response to comparison targets, r = .91, n = 11 1; stability of self, r = .79, n = 234; competitiveness (short form), r = .8 1, n = 138; social anxiety (shortened version), r = .84, n = 106; social approval seeking (short form), r = .68, n = 138; family concern with weight, r = .81, n = 146; and dieting in response to comparison, r = 39, n = 262.

Results

Data Screening

Distributions of all variables were checked for non-normality and outliers. In order to meet the assumptions of the statistical tests conducted that require nor- mal distributions (e.g., Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989), square root transformations were applied to measures of BMI, restraint, family concern with weight, and

1920 SCHUTZ ET AL.

dieting in response to comparison. Fourth root transformations were applied to binge eating scores and to weight teasing; a sixth root transformation applied to depression scores; and a square transformation applied to scores on public self- consciousness. Transformed variables were used for the correlation and regression analyses (though all significant findings were replicated in analyses conducted on untransformed data). All other analyses and reported means and standard deviations are on nontransformed variables.

Frequency of’Body Dissatisfaction and Dieting

Initially, body dissatisfaction and dieting across grade level were examined. A one-way ANOVA indicates that body dissatisfaction was significantly lower in Grade 7 ( M = 32.67, SD = 1 1.17) than in Grade 8 ( M = 36.54, SD = 1 1.41) or Grade 10 ( M = 38.82, SD = 13.49), F(2,540) = 11 .0 l ,p < .001. Similarly, dieting scores were significantly lower in Grade 7 ( M = 20.56, SD = 9.24) than in Grade 8 ( M = 23.51, SD = 9.61) or Grade 10 ( M I 25.41, SD = 10.71), F(2, 540) =

10.16 ,~ < .001. Of Grades 7, 8, and 10 girls, 38.2%, 59.5%, and 60.3%, respectively reported having been on a diet.

C‘ompurison Frequency in Appearance and Nonappearance Domains

In order to examine if appearance- and nonappearance-related social comparisons increase with grade among early and middle adolescent girls, responses to the single comparison items were compared first. In response to the question “Would you describe yourself as someone who compares your body with others?,” 38%, 53%, and 72% of Grade 7, 8, and 10 girls, respectively, responded at least sometimes. Grade 10 girls (A4 = 3.27, SD = 0.96) had significantly higher scores on this item than did either Grade 7 girls (A4 = 2.77, SD = 1 .00) or Grade 8 girls ( M = 2.88, SD = 0.98), F(2, 541) = 13.06, p < .001. In response to “Has comparing your body with others ever led you to actually start dieting?” 20%, 42%, and 44% of Grades 7, 8, and 10 girls, respectively, responded sometimes or more. All gradcs differed significantly from one another (Grade 7, M = 2.32, SD = 1.08; Grade 8, A4 = 2.68, SD = 1.08; Grade 10, M = 3.1 1 , SD = 1.03), F(2, 540) = 22.40, p < .00 1.

To further explore the relationship between comparison and Grade, a 6 x 3 (Appearance and Nonappearance Domains x Grade) mixed-factorial ANOVA with repeated measures on domain was conducted. Differences in responses across grade levels were explored using polynomial trend contrasts. Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for ratings of comparison frequency in the six domains by grade. The trend analysis indicates that with increasing grade, there were significant increases in comparisons of appearance, t(523) = 4.63,


Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations for Ratings of Comparison Frequency in Appearance and Nonappearance Domains by Grade

Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 10 Comparison frequency M SD M SD M SD

School marks 2.82 1.13 2.67 1.10 2.74 1.06 Appearance 2.65 1.27 2.87 1.18 3.28 1.17 Clothing 2.48 1.14 2.81 1.29 3.05 1.13 Fitness 2.38 1.23 2.40 1.10 2.67 1.17 Thinness 2.34 1.26 2.83 1.37 3.09 1.29 General abilities 2.48 1.02 2.57 1.06 2.78 0.99

Note. Scale ranges from 1 (never) to 5 (very often).

p < .001; clothing, t(523) = 4 . 4 5 , ~ < .001; fitness, t(523) = 2 . 1 8 , ~ < .05; thinness, ~(523) = 5.27, p < .OO; and general abilities, t(523) = 2 . 7 2 , ~ < .01; but not school marks, t(523) = -0.73, p = .47.

Frequencji of Comparing Body With Peers, Family Members, and Fashion Models

To examine the relative frequency of body comparison with peers, family members, and fashion models, an 8 x 3 (Body Comparison Target x Grade) mixed-factorial ANOVA with grade as a between-subjects factor and comparison target as a within-subjects factor was conducted. Because comparisons across all eight comparison targets (friends, other girls, popular girls, brothers, sisters, mother, father, fashion models) were being performed, only participants who reported a complete set of these possible comparison targets (i.e., mother, father, brother or brothers, and sister or sisters) were included in the analysis (n = 223; see Table 2 for relevant means).

Planned comparisons were conducted using a Bonferonni adjusted alpha of ,007. These indicated that adolescent girls reported comparing their bodies significantly more frequently with friends than with more distal peers (other girls and popular girls), r(220) = 3.83, p < .001; significantly more frequently with immediate peers (friends, other girls, and popular girls combined) than with family members, 4220) = 17.25, p < .001; but not fashion models, 4220) = 2.21, p < .05; and significantly more frequently with fashion models than with family members, t(220) = 1 1.34, p < .OO 1. Three further planned comparisons indicated

1922 SCHUTZ ET AL.

Table 2

Frequency of Comparing and Beginning Dieting in Response to Compurison With Immediate Peers, Family Members, and Fushion Models

Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 10

Target Action M SD M SD M SD

Friends

Other girls

Popular girls

Sister( s)

Brother(s)

Mother

Father

Fashion models

Compare Go on diet Compare Go on diet Compare Go on diet Compare Go on diet Compare Go on diet Compare Go on diet Compare Go on diet Compare Go on diet

2.47 1.29 1.68 1.12 2.20 1.10 1.57 0.95 2.18 1.26 .70 1.19 .71 1.01 .30 0.82 . I5 0.62 .08 0.43 .33 0.82

1.13 0.62 1.08 0.26 1.02 0.14 1.98 1.22 1.74 1.35

2.70 2.19 2.62 2.08 2.41 2.00 2.00 1.62 1.15 1.06 1.42 1.16 1.11 1.07 2.3 1 2.00

1.26 1.44 1.23 1.36 1.29 1.42 I .27 1.14 0.44 0.28 0.89 0.55 0.56 0.46 1.37 1.45

2.77 1.00 2.22 1.42 2.58 1.04 2.18 1.37 2.45 1.31 2.15 1.50 2.00 1.14 1.71 1.23 1.13 0.34 1.10 0.48 1.45 0.85 1.28 0.70 1.16 0.59 1.07 0.35 2.68 1.26 2.31 1.48

Note. Scale ranges from 1 (never) to 5 ( v q often).

that adolescent girls reported comparing themselves significantly more frequently with immediate peers (friends, other girls, and popular girls combined and averaged) than with same-gender family members (i.e., sisters or mothers) combined and averaged, t(220) = 1 2 . 1 4 , ~ < .001; significantly more frequently with fashion models than with same-gender family members, t(220) = 7.63, p < .001; and significantly more frequently with sisters than with mothers, t(220) =

6.61,p<.001. In summary, then, adolescent girls reported comparing their bodies signifi-

cantly more frequently with friends than with other girls and popular girls; significantly more frequently with peers than with family members; and significantly more frequently with fashion models than with family members. Girls also reported comparing their bodies significantly more frequently with immediate peers than with same-gender family members; significantly more frequently with


fashion models than with same-gender family members; and significantly more frequently with sisters than with mothers.

Frequency of Beginning Dieting Afer Comparing Body With Peers, Family Members, and Fashion Models

To examine if adolescent girls would be more likely to begin dieting after comparing their bodies to peers versus family members versus fashion models, a repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted using the same planned comparisons as those used in the previous analysis (Bonferonni adjusted a= ,007). Adolescent girls reported that they were significantly more likely to begin a diet as a result of comparing their bodies with immediate peers as opposed to family members, t(212) = 9.99, p < .001; and with fashion models more than family members, t(212) = 8 . 5 8 , ~ < .001. There were no significant differences in the reported frequency of beginning dieting in response to comparisons with friends as opposed to other girls and popular girls, t(212) = 1.42, p = .16; or with immediate peers as opposed to fashion models, t(2 12) = -0.65, p = .5 1. Adolescent girls reported being (a) significantly more likely to begin dieting after comparing their bodies with immediate peers (friends, other girls, and popular girls combined and averaged) than with sisters or mothers (combined and averaged), t(212) = 8 . 4 5 , ~ < .001; (b) significantly more likely to begin dieting after comparing their bodies with fashion models than with same-gender family members, 42 12) = 7.0 1, p < .001; and (c) significantly more likely to begin dieting after comparing their bodies with sisters than with mothers, (212) = 4 . 8 9 , ~ < .001.

Correlates of Weighi- and Shape-Related Body Comparisons

To investigate the third aim of the study, which was to examine associations between body comparisons and variables hypothesized to be related to these comparisons, Pearson product-moment correlations were performed using a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of .002. Initially, correlations between body comparison and the variables proposed to predict body comparison were examined. Significant correlation coefficients were found between body comparison and appearance orientation (.45), importance of thinness (.70), public self- consciousness (.55), sociocultural internalization (.69), teasing (.41), body image instability (.57), anxiety (.45), depression (.44), self-esteem (-.45), self-concept instability (.50), competitiveness (.41), perfectionism (. 19), social anxiety (.20), social approval (.30), family concern with weight (.49), friend concern with weight (.49), and BMI (.34). Second, correlations between body comparison and variables proposed to be a consequence of comparison were examined. Signifi- cant correlations were found between body comparison and body dissatisfaction (.69), body anxiety (.78), binge eating (.55), extreme weight-loss behaviors (.49), restraint (.64), and dieting in response to comparison (.73).

1924 SCHUTZ ET AL.

Predictors of Body Comparison and Dieting in Response to Body Comparison

In order to investigate predictors of body comparison, a stepwise regression analysis was conducted. As grade has been found to be related to body comparison, grade was entered into the regression. In accordance with our model, measures of appearance concerns (appearance orientation, importance of thinness, public self-consciousness, sociocultural internalization), body-related characteristics (body image instability, BMI), general psychopathology (anxiety, social anxiety, depression, self-concept instability, self-esteem), personality characteristics (competitiveness, perfectionism, need for social approval), social- environmental factors regarding weight (family and friend concern with weight), and grade were entered into the regression analysis. To increase confidence in the predictors obtained using this method (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989), prior to running the analyses, a randomization procedure was used to split the total sample into two so that the analyses could be cross validated on a second sample. A stepwise regression was run on the first subsample, and then the resulting regression equation was fitted to the second subsample to determine its goodness of fit. Since a high degree of generality across the two subsamples was found, the two subsamples were subsequently combined in order to build a regression model from the full sample.

Body comparison was significantly predicted by the predictor variables. As seen in Table 3 , importance of thinness accounted for 49% of the variance in body-comparison tendencies. Other significant predictors were sociocultural internalization, friend concern with weight, body image instability, competitiveness, grade, public self-consciousness, pcrfectionisrn, and family concern with weight.

In order to examine predictors of dieting in response to body comparison, a similar regression analysis was conducted. The same variables were entered into the regression, but in addition, proposed body experience consequences of comparison (body dissatisfaction and body anxiety) were also included. To avoid criterion contamination, body comparison, binge eating, extreme weight-loss behaviors, and restraint were not included in the analysis. Again, a randomization procedure was used to split the total sample, and the regression analysis cross validated on the second sample. A high degree of generality across the two subsamples was again observed, and consequently the full sample was used in the final regression analysis. The regression analysis predicting dieting in response to body comparison was significant, as indicated in Table 4. Importance of thinness accounted for the highest proportion of variance in dieting i n response to comparison (6 1 YO). Other significant predictors were body dissatisfaction, friend concern with weight, BMI, sociocultural internalization, and body anxiety.


Table 3

Stepwise Regression Predicting Body Comparison ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~

Multiple Step Variable r R Adj.R2 AR2 p F

1 2

3

8 9

Importance of thinness

Sociocultural

Friend concern with

Body instability

Competitiveness

Grade Public self-

Perfectionism

Family concern with

internalization

weight

consciousness

weight

.69 .70 .49 .49 .70

.72 .75 .56 .07 .38

.39 .77 .59 .04 .21

.51 .78 .6 1 .02 .17

.30 .79 .62 <.Ol .I2

.27 .79 .63 x.01 .10

.56 .78 .64 <.01 .09

.21 .80 .65 <.01 -.07

S O .80 .66 <.Ol .07

470.3*

310.6"

239.8* 193.1" 161.7" 140.0"

122.0* 108.3*

97.5"

*p < ,001.

Table 4

Stepwise Regression Predicting Dieting in Response to Comparison ~~~ ~ ~~~

Multiple Step Variable r R Adj.R2 AR2 F

1 Importance ofthinness .77 .78 .61 .61 .78 780.8* 2 Body dissatisfaction .77 .84 .71 .10 .48 612.8* 3 Friend concern with

weight .41 .85 .73 .02 .12 435.0* 4 Body mass index .49 .86 .74 .01 .13 345.7* 5 Sociocultural

internalization .71 .86 .75 .01 .15 290.8* 6 Body anxiety .77 ,237 .76 .01 .13 248.1*

*p < ,001.

1926 SCHUTZ ET AL.

Discussion

The present research contributes to current understanding of body-comparison and more general social-comparison processes in adolescent girls. Findings from the present study indicating an increase in appearance-related and more general social comparisons across age (with the exception of school marks) offer support for Hypothesis 1. They also support previous suggestions that social-comparison information assumes increasingly greater importance with higher age (at least up until middle adolescence) as children and adolescents attempt to stabilize their self-evaluations in different domains (Martin & Kennedy, 1993; Renick & Harter, 1989). Smolak and Levine (2001) highlighted that in universal prevention, an important goal is to increase resilience. The consistent associations in the existing research literature between body comparison and disturbed eating behaviors suggest that decreasing the tendency to compare might be one way of achieving this. Our data indicate that by Grade 7, these tendencies are emerging, but only 3 8% indicated that they compare their bodies with others sometimes or more frequently, whereas by Grade 10, 72% are saying that they do so. Thus, while further research is required to determine the best timing for primary prevention, our findings suggest that early in adolescence, or perhaps even in late childhood, rather than later in adolescence is likely to be appropriate.

Only partial support was found for Hypotheses 2 and 3. While adolescent girls reported comparing their bodies more with friends than with other female peers, and more with peers and fashion models than with family members, no significant differences were found in the frequency of body comparison with peers as opposed to fashion models (although there was a nonsignificant trend toward higher frequency of comparison with peers). Girls also reported that they were just as likely to begin dieting after comparisons with fashion models as opposed to peers contrary to predictions of Hypothesis 4. This finding poses some questions for Festinger’s ( I 954) hypothesis of a preference for more similar others (since one would generally assume that peers would be regarded as far more similar to adolescent schoolgirls than fashion models). One possibility is that despite considerable differences between themselves and fashion models on a range of dimensions (e.g., age, lifestyle, occupation), adolescent girls might nonetheless perceive fashion models as similar (and therefore valid) comparison others. Another possibility is that the motive of self-improvement (Wood, 1989) guides comparisons with fashion models. In this case, fashion models could be used as ideal beauty standards that direct adolescent girls’ self-improvement efforts. Future research is needed to investigate these issues.

It was also interesting that no significant differences were found in the frequency of beginning dieting in response to comparisons with friends as compared to other girls and popular girls, contrary to the prediction of Hypothesis 5. Perhaps White friends may be preferred over other friends for comparisons,


dieting efforts may be stimulated by any peers, regardless of their level of close- ness.

Interestingly, in relation to Hypothesis 6, girls reported being significantly more likely to compare their bodies and to begin dieting as a result of body comparisons with immediate peers versus same gender family members, fashion models versus same gender family members and sisters versus mothers. The greater frequency of comparison and beginning dieting as a result of comparisons with sisters as opposed to mothers, while not surprising, given their greater similarity to siblings in terms of age and other related dimensions, seems notable that to date considerably more research has focused on examination of maternal influences on adolescent girls’ body image attitudes and eating behaviors than of sib- ling influences (e.g., Benedikt, Wertheim, & Love, 1998; Striegel-Moore & Kearney-Cooke, 1994; Wertheim, Martin, Prior, Sanson, & Smart, in press).

The final aims of the present study were to examine associations between variables proposed in our model to contribute to and be a consequence of body- comparison tendencies (Figure 1) and to identify predictors of body comparison. In addition, attributes and social-environmental factors that predicted dieting as a consequence of body comparison were explored. As suggested by our model, girls who engage in body comparison are likely to: place a high premium on thinness; be acutely aware of their public image and broader social pressures for thinness; be heavier than their peers; have unstable perceptions of themselves and their bodies; be psychologically distressed; feel anxious about their competency in social situations; be perfectionistic and competitive in nature; perceive a high level of preoccupation with dieting among friends and family members; be more likely to have been teased about their appearance; and be older. Of these variables, the regression analysis indicated that importance of thinness, sociocultural internalization, and friend concern with weight, variables indicative of both personal and perceived environmental value placed on shape, were the strongest predictors of body-comparison tendencies. Although accounting for only a small amount of variance, other significant predictors of body-comparison tendencies were body image instability, competitiveness, grade, public self-consciousness, perfectionism, and family concern with weight. Taken together, the fact that the predictor variables proposed by our model account for a very high proportion of the variance offers support for the model. The very high proportion of variance accounted for by importance of thinness suggests that placing a high premium on thinness places one at high risk of body comparison.

These findings are consistent with Festinger’s (1 954) proposal that people’s drive for self-evaluation is stronger in domains that are of particular importance to them. Body comparisons might occur as a result of strongly internalized perceptions of the importance of thinness. Alternatively, a strong belief in the importance of thinness might result from, and be reinforced by, ongoing body comparisons. While these possibilities have been couched as alternatives, it is

1928 SCHUTZ ET AL.

likely that the processes are circular (i.e., perceptions of the importance of thinness both giving rise to and further perpetuating ongoing body comparisons). Consistent with our model, comparisons are more likely to occur in girls who are more uncertain of themselves. These characteristics might increase the need for comparisons made to arrive at an accurate assessment of a girl’s body relative to others (Festinger, 1954).

As predicted by our model, body comparison was also strongly associated with measures of body anxiety and body dissatisfaction. While the current cross-sectional design does not allow confirmation of this, it is proposed that body comparison leads to body anxiety and dissatisfaction. Despite the consistent relationships observed across studies between body comparison and body dissatisfaction (e.g., Heinberg & Thompson, 1992a, 1992b; Striegel-Moore et al., 1986), there has been little discussion as to why girls who are dissatisfied with their bodies continue to engage in body comparisons, given the potential costs of such comparisons. While possible self-serving explanations could be invoked to account for these relationships (e.g., downward comparisons for the purpose of self-enhancement or upward comparisons in the service of self- improvement), the high level of psychological and body-related distress among body-comparing girls does not suggest that self-enhancing comparisons are tak- ing place.

One possible explanation for these findings, suggested by the unstable body- and self-perceptions of body-comparing girls, is that their heightened uncertainty about their bodies (and the aversiveness of this uncertainty), might override the defensive avoidance of social comparisons among these girls, in spite of the potential costs of ongoing comparisons. According to Festinger’s (1 954) original theory, people are motivated to engage in social comparison precisely to reduce such uncertainty, and a number of studies have indicated that uncertainty drives a search for social comparison information, even if that information is likely to result in unflattering conclusions for the self (e.g., Trope, 1983, 1986).

Another possible explanation for these findings is a schematic one (e.g., Altabe & Thompson, 1996; Cash & Labarge, 1996). The very high correlations among the various measures of body concern, body comparison, and drive for thinness support this idea that a general body-concern schema might be involved, in which a variety of body-related behaviors and beliefs are involved. Girls who are weight- and shape-schematic might hold such a strong belief in the importance of thinness and the necessity for self-improvement efforts in this domain that they are unable to cease comparing. For these girls, the central role that body comparisons and ongoing body-improvement efforts play in their sense of self might account for their continuing engagement in body comparisons, in spite of the potential costs.

A final explanation for the persistence of social comparison tendencies, despite their negative associations, is that such comparisons are socially rewarded


and form part of girls’ social identities in many western cultures. For example, several authors (Nichter, 2000; Wertheim et al., 1997) have found evidence of “fat talk” (Nichter, 2000) being a common form of dialogue among teenage girls, which might further girls’ body concerns and dieting attempts (Muir, Wertheim, & Paxton, 1999; Wertheim et al., 1997).

Regardless of which of these factors might be responsible for fueling ongoing comparisons, unfortunately, research would suggest that the highly unstable body- and self-perceptions held by these girls, especially when combined with their concurrently high levels of psychological distress and high perceived importance of thinness, are likely to be particularly detrimental. To the extent that social comparisons frequently serve to destabilize self-conceptions (as a result of constant situational changes in comparison targets; e.g., Morse & Gergen, 1970), the act of comparing could be anticipated to only increase their uncertainty about their bodies, further increasing their drive to compare.

Further, previous research has indicated that persons low in self-esteem or with dysphoric symptoms are impaired in their capacity to use self-enhancing biases to distort potentially threatening information, tending to interpret comparison information negatively (e.g., Ahrens, 1991 ; Buunk, Collins, Taylor, VanYperen, & Dakof, 1990) and failing to cease comparing, even in the face of negative information (Swallow & Kuiper, 1992). This would suggest that, regardless of their objective body shape and size, psychologically distressed body- comparing girls are both more likely to expose themselves to comparison information and to interpret any comparison information negatively. The well- elaborated negative body schemas held by these girls could be hypothesized to be a further factor that might lead girls to interpret all incoming information in ways that fit with their existing preconceptions of the inadequacy of their bodies. Finally, the fact that these girls place such a high premium on thinness would suggest that the impact of unfavorable comparisons is likely to take on dispropor- tionate importance for these girls in their subsequent self-evaluations.

While the most adaptive behavior in these circumstances (from a self- protective standpoint) would be to cease comparing, the centrality of weight and shape to these girls’ self-concept, coupled with their psychological distress and unstable self- and body perceptions, could be anticipated to lead these girls only to continue their engagement in the social comparison process, hence only further increasing their likelihood of exposure to unfavorable comparisons. While prospective research is needed to examine the sequence of events, the present research findings play an important role in indicating the potential destructive- ness of the body-comparison “trap.”

Our descriptive data clearly indicate a general increase in body-comparison tendencies across grade. However, while significant, grade was not a strong predictor of body comparison when attitudes toward thinness, sociocultural internalization of the thin ideal. and other model variables were also considered. This

1930 SCHUTZ ET AL.

finding suggests that it is the increase of these latter factors across grade that is particularly related to the increase in body comparison, not grade per se.

The final aim of our study was to examine variablcs that predicted dieting in response to comparison. It was predicted that, in the presence of a high value being placed on thinness, if a body comparison contributes to a negative conclu- sion and consequently body dissatisfaction and anxiety, dieting would be more likely to result. While the causal direction cannot be determined from this cross- sectional study, there was support for this proposal. Importance of thinness was the major predictor of dieting in response to comparison. In addition, body dissatisfaction and body anxiety, potentially negative responses to comparison, made significant contributions to the variance. BMI, sociocultural internalization, and friend concern with weight also made significant but small contributions to the variance, suggesting that perceptions of the external value placed on thinness might play a role in the translation of comparison into actual dieting. Grade was not a significant predictor of dieting in response to comparison, suggesting that the increase in dieting in response to comparison is not related to grade per se. As with the regression equation for body comparison, it is notable that the equation for dieting in response to comparison accounted for very high proportions of variance, highlighting the very strong association between attitudinal variables and the behavioral response in the form of dieting.

Previous researchers (e.g., Stormer & Thompson, 1996; Thompson, 1992) have suggested that body comparison might lead to disturbed body image and eating attitudes and behaviors (with this assumption also guiding the data- analytic approach taken in this study). However, it also seems likely that disturbed body image and eating attitudes and behaviors might maintain and perpetuate preoccupation with body comparison (Thompson et al., 1999). Longitudinal data, which directly test the sequential relationships between the variables in our model, will play an important role in further understanding the directionality involved.

A number of important areas for future research are suggested by the present findings. These include examination of the reasons that girls compare (i.e., To what extent are comparisons motivated by a desire for self-evaluation, self- improvement, or self-enhancement?); the direction of comparisons (upward or downward); the extent to which comparisons are chosen or forced; and the immediate and long-term cognitive, emotional, and behavioral effects of comparisons. There is also a need for research that examines the importance that adolescent girls ascribe to different comparison targets in making judgments about their bodies, the extent to which they are affected by comparisons with these different comparison targets, and the degree of similarity that they perceive between themselves and various comparison others. To the extent that the modeling literature indicates that people are most likely to imitate another person’s behavior when that person is similar to them (Bandura, 1986), this latter question would appear to be


of special importance. Finally, while the present study is useful in indicating variables that might be included in the development of models of body comparison, conclusions that might be drawn from cross-sectional data are necessarily limited. Longitudinal data are needed to provide an indication of the causal sequence of relationships and the opportunity for testing models of body comparison and associated factors.

The implications of body comparisons for prevention work also need to be considered. Previous research pointing to the frequently automatic and uninten- tional nature of social comparisons (e.g., Gilbert et al, 1995; Goethals, 1986; Morse & Gergen, 1970) would suggest that attempting to eliminate body comparisons is unrealistic. Acknowledging this, more appropriate aims might be to work on trying to reduce or prevent excessive use of body comparisons and to teach girls strategies to minimize the potentially negative impact of comparisons when they do occur. Whether such strategies are best implemented in a universal man- ner (to all children or to all adolescents) or in a more selected or targeted fashion would need to be determined empirically. However, it is likely that different interventions might be appropriate at different developmental levels and for different populations (see Wertheim, 2000, for a discussion of these issues). Three possible approaches for tackling these body-comparison tendencies are described next.

First, to the extent that social comparison theory and research would suggest that individuals for whom thinness is of high importance will be both more likely to engage in body comparisons (Festinger, 1954) and also more likely to be more negatively affected by these comparisons (e.g., Tesser et al., 1988), developing strategies to modify overvalued beliefs about the importance of thinness in prevention and intervention programs would seem to be extremely important. A variety of preventive approaches could be used, such as cognitive techniques to challenge the importance of weight and shape (especially in relation to other personal values); media literacy programs to examine and critique sociocultural pressures for thinness; and psycho-education to assist girls to understand what is healthy and realistic for them, given their body size and genetic inheritance. For girls with highly elaborated and resistant weightlshape schemas, a more intensive and individual intervention might be necessary.

Second, one could work on teaching girls strategies to deal with the potentially negative impact of comparisons when they occur. Possible strategies that could be taught include developing their own reference points for assessing their bodies (so that they are less vulnerable to alternative reference points for evaluation and judgment), as well as more immediate ways to diffuse the negative affect generated by unfavorable comparisons (e.g., lowering the importance of weight and shape, emphasizing other more favorable comparison dimensions, increasing the degree of dissimilarity between themselves and the comparison others, or dis- tancing themselves from potentially threatening comparison others). Future research is needed to examine to what extent it is possible to teach girls these

1932 SCHUTZ ET AL.

strategies and to what extent the strategies can be retained by girls in order to better deal with the potentially adverse effects of unfavorable comparisons.

Finally, one could also work on strategies to increase the psychological well- being of girls. The social comparison research literature has shown consistently that individuals who are psychologically distressed are greatly impaired in their capacity to use self-enhancing biases to restore a positive self-image in the face of esteem-threatening social comparisons. They have a tendency not only to interpret all information in a negative way (e.g., Ahrens, 1991; Buunk et al, 1990), but also to fail to cease comparing in response to threatening information (Swallow & Kuiper, 1992). Considered alongside an extensive body of research indicating that girls in psychological distress have higher levels of body image and eating problems (e.g., Rosen, Gross, & Vara, 1987), this research suggests that broader school-based strategies aimed at enhancing the psychological well- being of students might also have positive benefits for the prevention and treatment of body image and eating issues, including body comparisons.

References

Ahrens, A. H. ( 1991 ). Dysphoria and social comparison: Combining information regarding others’ performances. Journal ?/Social and Clinic01 P.sychology,

Alasker, F., & Olweus, D. (1 986). Assessment of global negative self-evaluations and perceived stability of self in Norwegian preadolescents and adolescents. Journal oJ’Early Adolescence, 6, 269-278.

Altabe, M., & Thompson, J. (1996). Body image: A cognitive self-schema construct‘? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 20, 17 1 - 193.

Banasiak, S. J., Wertheim, E. H., Koerner, J., & Voudouris, N. J. (2000). Test- retest reliability and internal consistency of a variety of measures of dietary restraint and body concerns in a sample of adolescent girls. International Joirrnul of Eating Disorders, 29, 85-89

Bandura, A. ( 1 986). Socidfbundations oj’thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Beck, A. T., Rial, W. Y., & Rickels, K. (1974). Short form of Depression Inven- tory cross-validation. Psychological Reporrs, 34, 1 184- 1 I 86.

Benedikt, R., Wertheim, E. H., & Love, A. ( 1 998). Mothers’ and daughters’ eating attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27,43-57.

Ben-Tovim, D. I., & Walker, M. K. (1991). The development of the Ben-Tovim Walker Body Attitudes Questionnaire (BAQ), a new measure of women’s attitudes towards their own bodies. Psychological Medicine, 21, 775-784.

Brickman, P., & Bulman, R. J. (1977). Pleasure and pain in social comparison. In J. M. Suls & R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and ernpiriculpcrs(lectives (pp. 149-1 86). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

10, 192-205.


Brown, T. A., Cash, T. A., & Mikulka, P. J. (1990). Attitudinal body-image assessment: Factor analysis of the Body-Self Relations Questionnaire. Jour- nal of Personality Assessment, 55, 135-144.

Buunk, B. F?, Collins, R. L., Taylor, S. E., VanYperen, N. W., & Dakof, G. A. (1990). The affective consequences of social Comparison: Either direction has its ups and downs. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholoa, 59, 1238- 1249.

Byrnes, S. E., Burns, C., & Bauer, L. A. (1995, October). A validation study of the Ben-Tovim Walker Body Attitudes Questionnaire in girls 12-16 years. Paper presented at the ASSO Conference, Melbourne, Australia, Australian Society for the Study of Obesity.

Cash, T., & Labarge, A. (1 996). Development of the Appearance Schemas Inven- tory: A new cognitive body-image assessment. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 20,37-50.

Cassidy, T., & Lynn, R. (1 989). A multifactorial approach to achievement motivation: The development of a comprehensive measure. Journal of Occupational

Dower, J. ( 1996). An investigation of the relationship between body image and self- concept in adolescent females: A developmental perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology, Queensland, Australia.

Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self- consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-

Festinger, L. (1 954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations,

Garner, D. M. (1 991). Eating disorder inventory-2 professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Garner, D. M., & Olmsted, M. P. (1983). The eating disorder inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Gibbons, K., Wertheim, E. H., Paxton, S. J., Petrovich, J., & Szmukler, G. I. (1995). Nutrient intake of adolescents and its relationship to desire for thinness, weight loss, and bulimic tendencies. Australian Journal of Nutrition and Dietetics, 52, 69-74.

Gilbert, D. T., Giesler, R. B., & Morris, K. A. (1995). When comparisons arise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,227-236.

Goethals, G. R. (1986). Social comparison theory: Psychology from the lost and found. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12,261 -278.

Grigg, M., Bowman, J., & Redman, S. (1996). Disordered eating and unhealthy weight reduction practices among adolescent females. Preventive Medicine,

Hamilton, K., & Waller, G. (1 993). Media influences on body size estimation in anorexia and bulimia: An experimental study. British Journal of Psychiatv,

Psychology, 62,301-312.

chology, 43, 522-527.

7, 117-140.

25, 748-756.

162, 837-840.

1934 SCHUTZ ET AL.

Heinberg, L. J., & Thompson, J. K. (1 992a). The effects of figure size feedback (positive vs. negative) and target comparison group (particularistic vs. universalistic) on body image disturbance. International Journal qf Eating Disorders, 12,44 1-448.

Heinberg, L. J., & Thompson, J. K. (1992b). Social comparison: Gender, target importance ratings, and relation to body image disturbance. Journal qf Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 335-344.

Heinberg, L. J., & Thompson, J. K. (1995). Body image and televised images of thinness and attractiveness: A controlled laboratory investigation. Journul qf Social and Clinical Psychology, 14, 325-338.

Heinberg, L. J., Thompson, J. K., & Storiner, S. (1995). Development and validation of the Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire. Inter- national Journal qf Eating Disorders, 17,8 1-89.

Irving, L. M. (1990). Mirror images: Effects of the standard of beauty on the self- and body-esteem of women exhibiting varying levels of bulimic symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 230-242.

Keys, A,, Fidanza, F., Karvonen, M. J., Kimura, N., & Taylor, H. L. (1972). Indices of relative weight and obesity. Journal of Chronic Disability, 25, 329.

Laessle, R. G., Tuschl, R. J., Kotthaus, B. C., & Pirke, K. M. (1989). A comparison of the validity of three scales for the assessment of dietary restraint. Jour- nal oJ’Ahnormal Psychology, 98, 504-507.

Lunner, K., Wertheim, E. H., Thompson, J. K., Paxton, S. J . , McDonald, F., & Halvarsson, K. S. (2000). A cross-cultural examination of weight-related teasing, body image, and eating disturbance in Swedish and Australian samples. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 28,430-435.

Martin, H. J. (1984). A revised measure of approval motivation and its relationship to social desirability. Journal of’ Personality Assessment, 48,

Martin, M. C., & Kennedy, P. K. ( 1 993). Advertising and social comparison: Consequences for female pre adolescents and adolescents. Psychology and Marketing, 10, 5 13-530.

Miller, D. T., Turnbull, W., & McFarland, C. (1988). Particularistic and universalistic evaluation in the social comparison process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55,908-9 17.

Morse, S., & Gergen, K. J. (1970). Social comparison, self-consistency, and the concept of self. Journal oJ’Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 148-1 56.

Muir, S. L., Wertheim, E. H., & Paxton, S . J. (1999). Adolescent girls’ first diets: Triggers and the role of multiple dimensions of self-concept. Eating Disor- ders: The Journal of Treatment and Prevention, 7, 259-270.

National Institutes of Health Technology Assessment Panel. ( 1 992). Methods for voluntary weight loss and control: Technology Assessment Conference state- ment. Annals oflnternal Medicine, 116, 942-949.

509-5 19.


Nichter, M. (2000). Fat talk: What girls and their parents say about dieting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

O’Dea, J. A. (1995). Body image and nutritional status among adolescents and adults: A review of the literature. Australian Journal of Nutrition and Dietet- ics, 52,56-67.

Paxton, S. J., Schutz, H. K., Wertheim, E. H., & Muir, S. L. (1999). Friendship clique and peer influences on body image attitudes, dietary restraint, extreme weight loss behaviors, and binge eating in adolescent girls. Journal of Abnor- mal Psychology, 108,255-266.

Paxton, S. J., Wertheim, E. H., Gibbons, K., Szmukler, G. I., Hillier, L., & Petrovich, J. C. (1991). Body image satisfaction, dieting beliefs, and weight loss behaviors in adolescent girls and boys. Journal of Youth and Adoles- cence, 20,361-379.

Reed, D. L., Thompson, J. K., Brannick, M. T., & Sacco, W. P. (1991). Develop- ment and validation of the Physical Appearance State and Trait Anxiety Scale (PASTAS). Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 5,323-332.

Renick, M. J., & Harter, S. (1989). Impact of social comparisons on the developing self-perceptions of learning disabled students. Journal of Educational

Richins, M. L. (1991). Social comparison and the idealized images of advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 71-83.

Rosen, J. C., Gross, J., & Vara, L. (1987). Psychological adjustment of adolescents attempting to lose or gain weight. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Rosenberg, M. ( 1 965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1 985). The Self-Consciousness scale: A revised version for use with general populations. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-

Schoemaker, C., Van Strien, T., & Van Der Staak, C. (1994). Validation ofthe Eating Disorders Inventory in a nonclinical population using transformed and untransformed responses. International Journal ofEating Disorders, 15,387-393.

Simmons, R. G., Rosenberg, F., & Rosenberg, R. M. (1973). Disturbances in the self-image at adolescence. American Sociological Review, 38, 553-568.

Smolak, L., & Levine, M. (2001). A two-year follow-up of a primary prevention program for negative body image and unhealthy weight regulation. Eating Disorders: Journal of Treatment and Prevention, 9 , 3 13-325.

Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A, (1983). Manua1,fir the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consult- ing Psychologists Press.

Stormer, S. M., & Thompson, J. K. (1996). Explanations of body image disturbance: A test of maturational status, negative verbal commentary, social

Psychology, 81,631-638.

Psychology, 55, 742-747.

ogy, 15,687-699.

1936 SCHUTZ ET AL.

comparison, and sociocultural hypotheses. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 14, 193-202.

Striegel-Moore, R. H., & Kearney-Cooke, A. (1 994). Exploring parents’ attitudes and behaviours about their children’s physical appearance. International Joiirnal ofEuting Disorders, 4, 377-385.

Striegel-Moore, R., McAvay, G., & Rodin, J. (1986). Psychological and behav- ioural correlates of feeling fat in women. International Journal of’Eating Dis- orders, 5,935-947.

Swallow, S. R., & Kuiper, N. A. (1992). Mild depression and frequency of social comparison behavior. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, I I ,

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Teri, L. (1982). The use of the Beck Depression Inventory with adolescents. Journal qfAbnorma1 Child Psychology, 10,277-284.

Tesser, A,, Millar, M., & Moore, J. (1 988). Some affective consequences of social comparison and reflection processes: The pain and pleasure of being close. Journul of Personnlity and Social Psychology, 43,49-6 1.

Thompson, J. K. (1992). Body image: Extent of disturbance, associated features, theoretical models, assessment methodologies, interview strategies, and a proposal for a DSM-1V diagnostic category-body image disorder. In M. Hersen, R. M. Eisler, & P. M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavior modzficu- tion (pp. 3-54). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.

Thompson, J. K., Cattarin, J., Fowler, B., & Fisher, E. (1995). The Perception of Teasing scale (POTS): A revision and extension of the Physical Appearance Related Teasing scale (PARTS). Journul of Personality Assessment, 65,

Thompson, J. K., & Heinberg, L. J. (1993). Preliminary test of two hypotheses of body image disturbance. lnternational Journal of Eating Disorders, 14,

Thompson, J. K., Heinberg, L. J., Altabe, M., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (1999). Exact- ing beauty: T h e o q assessment, and treutment of body image disturbance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Trope, Y. (1983). Self-assessment in achievement behavior. In J. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self(Vo1. 2, pp. 93-1 2 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Trope, Y. (1 986). Self-enhancement and self-assessment in achievement behavior. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 350-378). New York, NY: Guilford.

Van Strien, T., Frijters, J. E. R., Bergers, G. P. A., & Defares, P. B. (1986). The Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (DEBQ) for assessment of restrained

167- 180.

146- 157.

59-63.


emotional, and external eating behaviour. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 5, 295-3 15.

Wardle, J., & Beales, S. (1 986). Restraint, body image, and food attitudes in children from 12 to 18 years. Appetite, 7,209-2 17.

Wertheim, E. H. (2000). Issues in the prevention of eating disorders and disordered eating. In D. Gaskill & F. Sanders (Eds.), The encultured body: Policy implications for healthy body image and disordered eating behaviours. Bris- bane, Australia: Queensland University of Technology Publications.

Wertheim, E. H., Martin, G., Prior, M., Sanson, A., & Smart, D. (in press). Parent influences in the transmission of eating and weight-related values and behaviours. Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment and Prevention.

Wertheim, E. H., Paxton, S. J., Schutz, H. K., & Muir, S. L. (1997). Why do adolescent girls “watch their weight”? An interview study examining sociocultural pressures to be thin. Journal ofPsychosomatic Research, 42,345-355.

Wheeler, L. (1966). Motivation as a determinant of upward comparison. Juurnal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2(Supp. l), 27-3 1.

Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psy- chological Bulletin, 90,245-271.

Wilson, G. T. (1993). Relation of dieting and voluntary weight loss to psychological functioning and binge eating. Annals of internal Medicine, 119, 727-730.

Wood, J. V. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 23 1-248.

Wylie, R. C. (1989). Measures of self-concept. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

investigation of body comparison among adolescent girls

Documents