Validation of self-ideal body size discrepancy as a measure of body dissatisfaction

1993 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald A. Williamson ◽  
David H. Gleaves ◽  
Philip C. Watkins ◽  
David G. Schlundt
Twin Research ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 260-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracey D. Wade ◽  
Cynthia M. Bulik ◽  
Andrew C. Heath ◽  
Nicholas G. Martin ◽  
Lindon J. Eaves

AbstractThe objective was to investigate the genetic epidemiology of figural stimuli. Standard figural stimuli were available from 5,325 complete twin pairs: 1,751 (32.9%) were monozygotic females, 1,068 (20.1%) were dizygotic females, 752 (14.1%) were monozygotic males, 495 (9.3%) were dizygotic males, and 1,259 (23.6%) were dizygotic male-female pairs. Univariate twin analyses were used to examine the influences on the individual variation in current body size and ideal body size. These data were analysed separately for men and women in each of five age groups. A factorial analysis of variance, with polychoric correlations between twin pairs as the dependent variable, and age, sex, zygosity, and the three interaction terms (age x sex, age x zygosity, sex x zygosity) as independent variables, was used to examine trends across the whole data set. Results showed genetic influences had the largest impact on the individual variation in current body size measures, whereas non-shared environmental influences were associated with the majority of individual variation in ideal body size. There was a significant main effect of zygosity (heritability) in predicting polychoric correlations for current body size and body dissatisfaction. There was a significant main effect of gender and zygosity in predicting ideal body size, with a gender x zygosity interaction. In common with BMI, heritability is important in influencing the estimation of current body size. Selection of desired body size for both men and women is more strongly influenced by environmental factors.


Author(s):  
Caterina Lombardo ◽  
Silvia Cerolini ◽  
Rita Maria Esposito ◽  
Fabio Lucidi

Abstract Purpose The study aims at validating a new pictorial tool, the Silhouette Rating Scale (SRS). It consists of a series of nine female or male silhouettes. It was created to assess current and ideal body size evaluation, and body dissatisfaction. Our aims were to test the concurrent, convergent and discriminant validity of the scale, evaluating possible gender differences. Method A first sample of 754 young adults (age M = 26.10 ± 8.50, males N = 218) and a second sample of 210 young adults (age M = 21.19 ± 3.22, males = 43) completed the SRS, and other self-report measures assessing body size evaluation, disordered eating, body satisfaction, depression, emotion regulation and insomnia. Results Statistical analyses performed on the first sample largely support the concurrent validity of the scale. Results obtained from the second sample confirm its convergent validity, showing strong correlations with the Contour Drawing Rating Scale. In addition, the correlations performed between the three responses of the SRS and other measures of eating disorders, depression, insomnia and emotion regulation indicated a good discriminant validity, though some of the variables measured seem to be significantly correlated. Conclusions The SRS is a reliable and valid tool for assessing current body size, body ideal and body dissatisfaction as compared to other widely used scales. It guarantees the universality of use thanks to the absence of details related to ethnicity or culture and at the same time, maintaining a right level of realism. Future studies will evaluate test–retest validity and its potential within clinical populations. Leve of evidence V, descriptive cross sectional study


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caterina Lombardo ◽  
Silvia Cerolini ◽  
Rita Maria Esposito ◽  
Fabio Lucidi

Abstract Purpose: The study aims at validating a new pictorial tool, the Silhouette Rating Scale (SRS). It consists of a series of 9 female or male silhouettes. It was created to assess current and ideal body size evaluation, and body dissatisfaction. Our aims were to test the concurrent, convergent and discriminant validity of the scale, evaluating possible gender differences.Method: A first sample of 754 young adults (age M=26.10±8.50, males N=218) and a second sample of 210 young adults (age M=21.19±3.22, males=43) completed the Silhouette Rating Scale, and other self-report measures assessing body size evaluation, disordered eating, body satisfaction, depression, emotion regulation and insomnia. Results: Statistical analyses performed on the first sample largely support the concurrent validity of the scale. Results obtained from the second sample confirm its convergent validity, showing strong correlations with the Contour Drawing Rating Scale. Additionally, the correlations performed between the three responses of the Silhouette Rating Scale and other measures of eating disorders, depression, insomnia and emotion regulation indicated a good discriminant validity, though some of the variables measured seem to be significantly correlated. Conclusions: The Silhouette Rating Scale is a reliable and valid tool for assessing current body size, body ideal and body dissatisfaction as compared as other widely used scales. It guarantees the universality of use thanks to the absence of details related to ethnicity or culture and at the same time, maintaining a right level of realism. Future studies will evaluate test-retest validity and its potential within clinical populations.Leve of Evidence: Level V, descriptive cross-sectional study


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Talbot

Body dissatisfaction can be defined as a negative subjective evaluation of one’s body as a whole, or relating to specific aspects of one’s body such as body size, shape, muscularity/muscle tone, and weight. Prior research has found that body dissatisfaction is associated with a number of negative psychological and physiological outcomes. This commentary describes the Western ideal male body, as well as providing a summary of theories of the cause and maintenance of male body dissatisfaction.


2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 56S-63S ◽  
Author(s):  
Maryam Yepes ◽  
Jürgen Maurer ◽  
Silvia Stringhini ◽  
Barathi Viswanathan ◽  
Jude Gedeon ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 58 (5) ◽  
pp. 583-597 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek Anamaale Tuoyire ◽  
Akwasi Kumi-Kyereme ◽  
David Teye Doku ◽  
Joshua Amo-Adjei

Sex Roles ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 34 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 391-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon H. Thompson ◽  
Roger G. Sargent ◽  
Karen A. Kemper

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document