Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1139-1163
QUINLIVAN
BODY
APPRAISAL
AND LEARY
DISCREPANCIES
Previous research has revealed that some women rate their physique differently
from how they believe others perceive them. This study examined the nature of this
discrepancy, relying on research on selfverification and selfenhancement regarding how people respond to consistent vs. enhancing selfrelevant information.
Participants received feedback about their appearance that was either congruent
with their selfappraisal, congruent with their reflected appraisal, or more positive
than their selfappraisal. Affectively, participants responded to positive feedback
more favorably than negative feedback, regardless of the direction of their discrepancy. For perceived accuracy, participants who rated themselves heavier than they
thought other people see them responded more favorably to selfenhancing feedback, while participants who rated themselves thinner than they thought others see
them responded more favorably to selfverifying feedback.
Twenty years ago, Rodin, Silberstein, and StriegelMoore (1984) addressed the increasing importance for women to have a thin figure, referring to this focus on thinness as a cultural norm. Today, even a
cursory look at Western society suggests that many women are still exceptionally concerned with the appearance of their bodies. Ultrathin
fashion models, magazine headlines (Lose 10 pounds before summer!), the popularity of fitness clubs, and innumerable products for
body enhancement all reflect widespread obsession with the female figure. Not surprisingly, the number of women who are unhappy with
their bodies is quite high and has increased over the preceding two decades (Cash & Henry, 1995). The importance placed on having a particu-
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mark Leary, Department of Psychology, Wake Forrest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27109. E-mail:
leary@wfu.edu
1139
1140
lar, ideal body shape leads to a great deal of negative affect and
maladaptive behavior among women who view their bodies unfavorably (Jacobi & Cash, 1994; Levine, Smolak, & Hayden, 1994; Monteath &
McCabe, 1997; Muth & Cash, 1997).
Although many measures have been designed to assess womens
body dissatisfaction, one longstanding and widely used measure is
Stunkard, Sorenson, and Schulsingers (1983) Figure Rating Scale (e.g.,
Altabe & Thompson, 1996; Mautner, Owen, & Furnham, 2000; Monteath
& McCabe, 1997; Snyder & Hasbrouck, 1996; Stuhldreher & Ryan, 1999;
TantleffDunn & Thompson, 1995; Tiggemann, 1996). Participants report which of nine figures, ranging from very thin to very overweight,
they think is most like their current actual figure and which most resembles their ideal body shape. The degree of discrepancy between an individuals actual and ideal figures, if any, is assumed to indicate the degree to which the woman is dissatisfied with her body (Smolak &
Levine, 2001).
Not only do many women report a discrepancy between their actual
and ideal figures, but some also perceive their figures differently from
how they think other people perceive them. Using figures based on
those by Stunkard et al. (1983), Quinlivan and Leary (2001) asked female
participants to rate both how they see themselves (i.e., their selfappraisal) and how they think others see them (i.e., their reflected appraisal). The majority of the participants demonstrated a discrepancy
between their self and reflected appraisals, with 51% of the participants
reporting that they are actually heavier than they think other people see
them and 22% reporting that they are thinner than others think.
Discrepancies between self and reflected appraisals of ones body
may occur for many reasons. Previous research has shown that people
assess their own figure both cognitively and affectively (Tiggemann,
1996). One possibility for differences in self and reflected appraisals is
that a womans feelings of dissatisfaction with her body come into play
when asked how she thinks she looks (i.e., leading to a more affectrelated judgment), while her feelings of dissatisfaction are not a factor
when considering how others would see her (i.e., resulting in a more
cognitivelybased judgment). Thus, womens positive or negative attitudes toward their bodies may lead them to view their body more favorably or unfavorably than is objectively so, just as peoples attitudes influence judgments of physical stimuli in other domains (Bruner &
Goodman, 1947).
Alternatively, some women may rate themselves as heavier or thinner
than they suspect they really are as a way of maintaining positive feelings about themselves. For example, some may maintain that they are
thinner than others see them to avoid feeling dissatisfied with them-
1141
selves. The literature is replete with evidence that people maintain excessively positive views of themselves, often while knowing that other
people see them less positively, to maintain selfesteem or reduce negative affect (e.g., Greenwald, 1980; Taylor & Brown, 1988). In addition,
people sometimes express selfappraisals that they know are inconsistent with the truth to elicit selfaffirming feedback from others. For example, women may claim that they are heavier than they think others
see them, hoping that someone will discredit their remark and reassure
them that they are thinner than they claim. Participants may even rate
themselves as heavier than they think they are on questionnaires, in anticipation of future interactions with individuals who have viewed these
ratings. If the viewer has an initial impression of the participant as
heavier than she is, then the viewer may have a more positive reaction
when meeting the participant and realizing that she is thinner than the
viewer had expected.
The present study was designed to explore the nature of the discrepancies between womens perceptions of their own bodies and how they
believe other people perceive them. Reported discrepancies could be the
result of a perceptual bias stemming from negative body image or from
the motivation to maintain positive feelings about ones physique. To
address these issues, we relied on insights provided by previous research regarding how people respond to selfverifying vs.
selfenhancing information.
Selfverification theory states that people seek information that is consistent with how they see themselves (Swann, 1997; Swann & Read,
1981). Validation of ones selfviews provides assurance that the person
can predict others reactions to the individual and allows one to behave
in adaptive ways (Swann, 1997). According to selfverification theory,
people seek feedback that is consistent with their selfviews, regardless
of the positive or negative content of such information. Within the realm
of body dissatisfaction, Joiner (1999) found that women with bulimic
symptoms were more likely than women who were satisfied with their
bodies to invite negative feedback from others regarding their physical
appearance. Joiner proposed that bulimic women may be caught in a
dangerous cycle of selfverification that perpetuates their body
dissatisfaction.
Selfenhancement theory, on the other hand, proposes that people
have a pervasive tendency to maintain positive views of themselves
(Hoyle, Kernis, Leary, & Baldwin, 1999). According to the selfenhancement perspective, people desire and seek out information that makes
them feel good about themselves, regardless of whether the information
is accurate (Baumeister, 1995; Swann, Hixon, SteinSeroussi, & Gilbert,
1990; Taylor & Brown, 1988).
1142
Selfenhancement motives lead people to view themselves in unrealistically flattering ways. For example, they may rate themselves favorably on important attributes, overestimate their control over events, see
themselves as being unusually moral, and construe events in ways that
reflect positively upon themselves (for reviews, see Baumeister, 1998;
Blaine & Crocker, 1993; Greenwald, 1980; Taylor & Brown, 1988). In the
realm of body image, women may underestimate their size or weight,
and preferentially seek positive information about their appearance, to
maintain a reasonably favorable selfimage. Selfenhancement motives
have received little attention in the body image literature although we
know that peoples selfesteem is tied to how they think they look (Fleming & Courtney, 1984; Harter, 1999), and we can assume that people
prefer to feel good rather than bad about their physical appearance.
In response to conflicting findings regarding whether people are motivated primarily by selfverification vs. selfenhancement, researchers
have proposed that selfverification and selfenhancement motives
produce separate cognitive vs. affective effects. Shrauger (1975) proposed that affective reactions to feedback are determined by the
positivity of the feedback, whereas cognitive reactions are determined
more by its consistency with the persons selfimage. Put differently,
people react emotionally to selfrelevant information based primarily
on its implications for their selfesteem but cognitively assess its veracity based on its consistency with their selfviews. Empirical evidence
provided by Swann, Griffin, Predmore, and Gaines (1987) revealed that,
regardless of how negative or positive a participants selfconcept, positive feedback was preferred to the same extent on an affective level.
Cognitively, however, verification of ones own selfview was
preferred.
This line of research suggests that affective reactions to feedback about
ones appearance may reflect selfenhancement processes, whereas cognitive reactions to the same feedback may reflect selfverification processes. In the present study, female participants received feedback about
their appearance that was either consistent with their view of themselves (i.e., selfcongruent), consistent with how they thought other people see them (i.e., socialcongruent), or more positive than they saw
themselves (i.e., idealized). Cognitive and emotional reactions to this
feedback were assessed to provide an indication of the processes underlying womens assessment of their bodies. Support for cognitive
selfverification processes would be obtained if women judged information about their bodies to be more accurate the more it confirmed
their own body image, regardless of its favorability. Support for affective selfenhancement processes would be obtained if women judged
1143
METHOD
PARTICIPANTS
Women were chosen as participants for the current study due to the
higher occurrence of body dissatisfaction among women than men
(Cash & Brown, 1989; Feingold & Mazzella, 1998; Franzoi, Kessenich, &
Sugrue, 1989; McKinley, 1998; Muth & Cash, 1997; Stuhldreher & Ryan,
1999). Three-hundred and eighty undergraduate participants were pretested during a mass testing session held at the beginning of the semester. During this session, women rated themselves using a modification
of Stunkard et al.s (1983) Figure Rating Scale. Scores on this measure
have been shown to be stable over 45 weeks (testretest r = .87;
Banasiak, Wertheim, Koerner, & Voudouris, 2001) and to predict body
dissatisfaction (Altabe & Thompson, 1992, 1996; Thompson & Altabe,
1991; Tiggemann, 1996).
Participants were asked to rate themselves on the nine figures from
two different points of view. The selfappraisal question asked participants to indicate the figure that corresponds to how you think you currently look, and the reflected appraisal question asked participants to indicate the figure that corresponds to how you think others think you
look. A distinction between feelings and beliefs about ones body was
not made, as we sought to measure the overall perception each woman
had of her body from the perspectives of self and others, perceptions that
may be affected by both feelings and beliefs. To provide participants
with a greater range of response options than that offered by the original, 9item version of the Figure Rating Scale, responses were made on a
27point scale displayed below the nine figures (see Figure 1). Previous
work showed that participants may indicate a self/reflected appraisal
discrepancy that is less than one whole figure, making the expansion of
the scale necessary (Quinlivan & Leary, 2001). In addition, participants
completed the Body Dissatisfaction subscale of the Eating Disorders Inventory (EDI; Garner, Olmsted, & Polivy, 1983) and the Appearance
Evaluation subscale of the Multidimensional BodySelf Relations
Questionnaire (MBSRQ; Cash, 1994b) during this mass testing session.
Based on their reported self/reflected appraisal discrepancy (negative, positive, or none), participants were able to sign up for what appeared to be one of three experiments. This process facilitated an equal
number of participants for each discrepancy condition. The primary
1144
FIGURE 1. Silhouettes and corresponding 27-point scale used for participants self-appraisal and reflected appraisal ratings. Note that the numbers did not appear below the
boxes on the questionnaires that participants completed.
study included 81 women from the initial pool. Participants received required experimental participation credit for their involvement.
PROCEDURE
When participants reported for the experimental session, they were
placed alone in a room containing a oneway mirror. Participants were
told that the study was investigating how people form first impressions
of others based on minimal information about them. After completing
an informed consent form, participants were told that another participant would observe them through the oneway mirror to form
impressions of them.
Participants stood facing the oneway mirror, where the observer ostensibly viewed them for two minutes. Following the observational period, participants were told that, in different experimental sessions, the
observers rated different characteristics and that, in this particular session, the observer had been asked to rate their physical appearance. A
feedback form ostensibly completed by the observer was then shown to
the participant. In actuality, the feedback that participants received was
based on their own appearance ratings from the questionnaire they had
completed in mass testing 24 weeks earlier. The form showed the nine
figures accompanied by the 27point scale that participants had used to
rate themselves earlier.
In the selfcongruent feedback condition, participants were given feedback that was identical to their selfratings at mass testing. In the socialcongruent feedback condition, participants were given feedback that
was consistent with how they reported that other people view them. In
1145
RESULTS
Following the analysis of the manipulation check, the results will be described in four sections, focusing on accuracy ratings, state selfesteem,
emotional responses, and ratings of the observer. Body mass index
1146
1147
ACCURACY RATINGS
1148
self/reflected appraisal discrepancy significant in the idealized feedback condition, F(1, 70) = 1.67, p > .05.
Analyses of differences between feedback conditions using the JohnsonNeyman procedure revealed that participants who rated themselves
as thinner than others see them (i.e., those with negative self/reflected appraisal discrepancies) did not rate the accuracy of the feedback differently
in the self and socialcongruent feedback conditions (upper boundary of
region of nonsignificance = .09). Thus, participants with a negative
self/reflected appraisal discrepancy rated the accuracy of the feedback
similarly when it was consistent with either their selfappraisal or their
reflected appraisal. For these same participants, idealized feedback was
rated as significantly less accurate than either selfcongruent feedback
(lower boundary of region of nonsignificance = .12) or socialcongruent
feedback (lower boundary = .77). (To clarify the meaning of regions of
nonsignificance, a lower boundary of .12 means that accuracy ratings in
the idealized and selfcongruent feedback conditions were significantly
different for participants with a discrepancy more negative than .12, but
not significantly different for participants whose discrepancy was greater
than .12.) Results for these participants seem to support the selfverification perspective because they rated idealized feedback as less accurate
than ratings that mirrored those they had provided during mass testing.
For individuals who rated themselves as heavier than they think others see them (i.e., those with positive self/reflected appraisal discrepancies), however, selfcongruent feedback was viewed as significantly less
accurate than both socialcongruent feedback (upper boundary = .10)
and idealized feedback (upper boundary = .30). Results for participants
in this group seem to support a selfenhancement hypothesis because
they should find selfcongruent feedback to be relatively negative in
comparison to the other two types of feedback.
For participants who did not report a discrepancy between their self
and reflected appraisals at mass testing, ratings of the accuracy of
selfcongruent feedback and idealized feedback did not differ significantly (lower boundary = .12; upper boundary = .30). Thus, when
women with no self/reflected appraisal discrepancy received overly
positive information, they rated this positive information just as accurately as they rated selfappraisal feedback. Therefore, results for participants with no self/reflected appraisal discrepancy seem to reflect a
selfenhancement process.
STATE SELFESTEEM
Internal consistency (Cronbachs alpha) for each of the three subscales of
Heatherton and Polivys (1991) was adequate: social, .89; performance,
1149
1150
1151
1152
are essentially zero), ps > .05. However, participants in the socialcongruent feedback condition reacted differently depending on their
self/reflected appraisal discrepancy at mass testing, F(1, 68) = 3.72, p <
.05. After receiving socialcongruent feedback, participants who saw
themselves as thinner than they thought others viewed them had the
highest negative affect, whereas participants who saw themselves as
heavier than they thought others saw them had the lowest negative
affect.
For participants who rated themselves as thinner than they think others see them, socialcongruent feedback led to higher dysphoria than
did both selfcongruent (lower boundary = .02) and idealized feedback
(lower boundary = 1.3), ps < .05. For these individuals, socialcongruent
feedback is relatively more negative than the other two feedback conditions. Conversely, for individuals who rated themselves as heavier than
others see them, selfcongruent feedback led to significantly higher
dysphoria than did socialcongruent (upper boundary = .46) and idealized feedback (upper boundary = 2.4), p < .05. Selfcongruent feedback
is relatively more negative for these individuals than socialcongruent
or idealized feedback.
A marginal feedback condition by selfappraisal interaction was also
found for the dysphoria factor (see Figure 6), F(2, 68) = 3.03, p = .055, R2 =
.07. Tests of simple slopes revealed that participants in the selfcongruent feedback condition reported significantly greater dysphoria the
heavier they rated themselves, F(1, 68) = 7.89, p < .05. Individuals in the
socialcongruent feedback condition, F(1, 68) = .27, p > .05, and the ideal-
1153
ized feedback condition, F(1, 68) = .01, p > .05, did not differ significantly
across selfappraisals.
For participants with a thinnerthanaverage selfappraisal, socialcongruent feedback led to higher levels of dysphoria than selfcongruent (lower boundary = 13.0) and idealized feedback (lower boundary
= 18.7), ps < .05. In contrast, participants with a heavierthanaverage
selfappraisal reported greater dysphoria when given selfcongruent
feedback than either socialcongruent (upper boundary = 14.0) or idealized feedback (upper boundary = 10.8), ps < .05. Selfcongruent feedback for heavier individuals should be relatively more negative because
it confirms a heavier than average selfappraisal.
Positive Affect. An interaction of feedback condition by selfappraisal
was also found for Factor 2 (happy/strong, Figure 7), F(2, 70) = 3.10, p < .05,
R2 = .07. Again, participants in the selfcongruent feedback condition
differed significantly as a function of selfappraisal, F(1, 70) = 7.60, p <
.05, while individuals given socialcongruent feedback, F(1, 70) = 1.27, p
> .05, and individuals given idealized feedback, F(1, 70) = .10, p > .05, did
not differ across selfappraisals. In the selfcongruent feedback condition, the thinner that individuals rated themselves during mass testing,
the higher their positive affect in the experiment.
Participants with an average selfappraisal responded to self and socialcongruent information with roughly the same positive affect (lower
boundary = 12.9; upper boundary = 13.7), p > .05. Idealized information
for these individuals, however, led to higher positive affect than either
selfcongruent feedback (upper boundary = 11.7) or socialcongruent
1154
feedback (lower boundary = 15.3), ps < .05. For participants who rated
themselves as thinner than average, selfcongruent and idealized feedback did not influence positive affect differently (upper boundary =
11.7), p > .05, and socialcongruent feedback led to lower positive affect
than selfcongruent (lower boundary = 13.4) and idealized feedback
(lower boundary = 15.3), ps < .05.
In contrast, participants who rated themselves heavier than average
experienced lower positive affect when given selfcongruent feedback
than socialcongruent feedback (upper boundary = 13.7), p < .05.
Selfcongruent feedback should be relatively negative to these individuals because it affirms their perception that they are heavier than average. Similar to those with both thin and average selfappraisals, however, heavier participants also had high levels of positive affect when
given idealized feedback.
Scores for factors 3 (guilt/hostility) and 4 (anxiety) were not significantly related to feedback condition, self/reflected appraisal discrepancy, or selfappraisals.
RATINGS OF THE OBSERVER
Liking. A main effect of feedback condition was found for the question
How much do you think you would like the observer?, F(2, 77) = 6.10,
p < .01. Tukeys HSD test revealed that participants in the idealized feedback condition (M = 8.9) reported that they would like the observer more
than did individuals in the selfcongruent condition (M = 7.4) and the
socialcongruent condition (M = 7.6), ps < .05, which did not differ
significantly.
Desire to Get to Know the Observer. No main effects or interactions
were found on participants ratings of how much they would like to get
to know the observer.
Friendliness. Analysis of the ratings of the observers friendliness revealed a main effect of feedback condition, F(2, 77) = 7.77, p < .05. Participants who received idealized feedback gave the observer the highest ratings for friendliness (M = 18.8), followed by individuals in the
socialcongruent feedback condition (M = 16.3). Tukeys HSD test
showed that participants in the idealized feedback condition rated the
observer as significantly more friendly than participants in the selfcongruent feedback condition (M = 13.6), p < .05.
An interaction between feedback condition and self/reflected appraisal discrepancy, F(2, 70) = 4.90, p < .05, R2 = .10, was also obtained on
ratings of friendliness (Figure 8). Level of discrepancy and friendliness
rating were significantly related in both the selfcongruent, F(1, 70) =
6.83, p < .05, and socialcongruent feedback conditions, F(1, 70) = 3.49, p
1155
1156
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to explore discrepancies between how
some women see themselves and how they think other perceive them.
The results of this study were intended to address the question of
whether the discrepancy reflects a cognitive bias (or, perhaps, perceptual distortion) or a selfserving tactic for maintaining selfesteem or
seeking selfenhancing information. Results supporting selfverification would suggest that at least some women actually perceive their
bodies differently than they believe other people do. Results supporting
selfenhancement, however, would suggest that the perceptual discrepancy arises from the motivation to maintain selfesteem and/or gain
positive feedback from others.
Overall, the results supported the selfenhancement perspective, although a few exceptions will be discussed. In general, participants appeared to prefer feedback about their physique that was relatively positive, responding with higher positive affect and more positive feelings
toward the person who provided the feedback. Importantly, the effects
of flattering feedback occurred even when the feedback was not consistent with how participants had rated themselves during mass testing.
First, negative affect was consistently low and positive affect was consistently high in the idealized feedback condition across all levels of discrepancy and selfappraisal. This pattern supports the hypothesis that
positive feedback regarding ones figure evokes positive reactions even
when this information is not congruent with a womans self or reflected
appraisals. Furthermore, women who reported seeing themselves as
1157
thin, and who were given feedback congruent with their thin selfappraisal, had lower negative affect than women who reported seeing
themselves as heavy and who received feedback congruent with their
heavy selfappraisal. Had participants been reacting only to the accuracy or selfconsistency of the feedback, they should have felt the same
about selfcongruent feedback regardless of its content. Clearly, however, they preferred positive selfcongruent feedback to negative
selfcongruent feedback. Because there is a cultural norm of thinness
(Rodin et al., 1984), we can assume that feedback confirming a thin
selfappraisal is more selfenhancing than feedback confirming a heavy
selfappraisal. Additionally, participants who reported that others see
them as heavier than they really are reacted more negatively to feedback
consistent with that idea (i.e., socialcongruent feedback) than participants who reported that others see them as thinner than they really are.
Participants in the latter group find socialcongruent feedback more
positive because it is thinner than they see themselves.
Not surprisingly, results revealed that participants selfappraisals
were related to their appearance state selfesteem. Feedback that confirmed a thin selfappraisal created higher appearance selfesteem than
feedback confirming a heavy selfappraisal. These results also suggest
that individuals prefer positive information about their appearance.
The results also revealed that individuals social state selfesteem was
affected by the feedback that they received, indicating that evaluations
of ones physique can generalize to affect social selfesteem. When given
selfcongruent feedback, participants with a thin selfappraisal had
higher social state selfesteem than participants with a heavy selfappraisal. This effect of feedback on social state selfesteem suggests that
women assume that other peoples judgments of their bodies influence
others opinions of them more generally. It is also consistent with
sociometer theory (Leary & Downs, 1995), which proposes that state
selfesteem monitors other peoples evaluations of the individual
visvis social acceptance and rejection. Apparently, judging women
as heavy makes them feel less socially accepted and thus lowers their
selfesteem (Leary & Baumeister, 2000). Furthermore, the fact that appearance feedback generalized across domains of selfesteem suggests
the potential for body dissatisfaction to pervade everyday life beyond
situations in which physical appearance is directly relevant.
Additionally, the feedback that participants received affected their
ratings of the bogus observer. Ratings of the observers friendliness and
likeability indicated that participants viewed observers who gave them
positive feedback as friendlier and more likeable than observers who
gave relatively negative feedback. Women given idealized feedback
consistently rated the observer as more friendly than average, with no
1158
1159
1160
1161
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Altabe, M., & Thompson, J. K. (1992). Size estimation versus figural ratings of body image
disturbance: Relation to body dissatisfaction and eating dysfunction. International
Journal of Eating Disorders, 11, 397402.
Banasiak, S. J., Wertheim, E. H., Koerner, J., & Voudouris, N. J. (2001). Testretest reliability
and internal consistency of a variety of measures of dietary restraint and body concerns in a sample of adolescent girls. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 29,
8589.
Altabe, M., & Thompson, J. K. (1996). Body image: A cognitive selfschema construct? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 20, 171193.
Baumeister, R. F. (1995). Self and identity: An introduction. In A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced social psychology (pp. 5198). Boston: McGrawHill.
Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook
of social psychology: Vol. 1 (4th ed., pp. 680740). New York: McGrawHill.
Blaine, B., & Crocker, J. (1983). Selfesteem and selfserving biases in reaction to positive
and negative events: An integrative review. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Selfesteem:
The puzzle of low selfregard (pp. 5585). New York: Plenum.
Bruner, J. S., & Goodman, C. C. (1947). Value and need as organizing factors in perception.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42, 3344.
1162
1163