Drawings or 3D models: Do illustration methods matter when assessing perceived body size and body dissatisfaction?

Research has reported that both men and women experience body dissatisfaction. Among other instruments, a widely used method to assess perceived body size and body dissatisfaction are figure rating scales. Although a variety of illustration methods (e.g., three-dimensional, or 3D, models and line-drawing models) have been used to create these figure rating scales, to date, they have not been directly compared to one another. Thus, in the first study, which includes 511 participants at a mean age of 46 years old (range: 20–70), the present research work aims to assess how the line-drawing and 3D model scales, representing different body illustration methods, relate to each other. Furthermore, the first study assesses the validity of the indication of body dissatisfaction measured using these figure rating scales by comparing them to body checking or scrutinizing behavior and body appreciation levels. The project’s second study examines the two figure rating scales using objectively measured anthropometric data. In total, 239 participants at a mean age of 54 years (range: 18–94) were included. The results show that figure rating scales can be considered tools that measure perceptual body image due to their positive correlations with body checking behavior (for women) and their negative correlations with body appreciation. The 3D model and line-drawing scales show good to excellent inter-scale reliability, and both scales agree equally well with body mass index (BMI) measurements. Thus, the 3D model and line-drawing scales both seem well suited for assessing perceived body size and perceptual body dissatisfaction, suggesting that neither illustration method is superior to the other.

Current and Ideal Physique Choices in Exercising and Nonexercising College Women from a Pilot Athletic Image Scale

An Athletic Image Scale including female physiques with and without muscular definition is currently in the developmental phase. With shading, contouring, and three-dimensionality not offered previously on figure-rating scales, this instrument was designed to examine an apparent growing interest on the part of women in athletic body-image ideals. The athletic level of each figure on the scale was based on responses of a group of college women. The 30–figure pilot scale was then tested by rating current and ideal body-shape preferences of two groups of first-year college women, 65 who exercised regularly and 45 who engaged in no regular exercise. Analysis showed no relationship between current and ideal physique choice and exercise status. Most exercising and nonexercising women chose a mesomorphic ideal physique with upper-body muscularity unlikely to occur without substantial amounts of physical activity. The associations among exercise status, figure choice, subscale scores on the Eating Disorder Inventory, and Self-esteem Scale scores were also examined. Women choosing moderately mesomorphic figures as their current shape had the lowest Body Dissatisfaction scale scores on the Eating Disorder Inventory irrespective of exercise status. Current- and ideal-shape preferences were not related to self-esteem scores. The pilot Athletic Image Scale offered several figures which seemed to be relevant to women although it must be noted that the scale purposely emphasized particular physiques. Even so, it is important to recognize that greater than sixty percent of the women preferred images with athletic physiques which are not offered on figure-rating scales presently in use.