Navigating through an idealized Instagram feed:
An Experimental Study Examining the Effects of Instagram
Exposure on Men’s Body Image
Name: Leon Hollander Student ID: 10562826 Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Research Master Communication Science Supervisor: Ms. dr. S.R. Sumter
Date of completion: 06/27/2019 Word count: 7495
2
Abstract
There has been a lack of studies examining the role of social media on men’s body image, especially in the context of Instagram. In addition, the existing media effect studies on men’s body image often disregard individual differences. The present study experimentally
investigated the impact of Instagram exposure to muscularized and sexualized influencers compared to non-muscularized and non-sexualized influencers on men’s body image, under the framework of Perloff’s transactional model of social media and body image concerns. A negative effect was found for the muscularization of influencers on momentary body
satisfaction, but not on body satisfaction. No effects were found for the sexualization of influencers on men’s body image. In contrast to previous studies, there were no differences in body image concerns between heterosexual and non-heterosexual men, nor did sexual
orientation function as moderator – thus, emphasizing the importance to focus on individual differences independent of sexual orientation. Obedience to hypermasculine norms was found to positively moderate the relationship between muscularization and body satisfaction.
Moreover, the tendency to compare oneself to others was found to moderate the relationship between muscularization and momentary body satisfaction. Individual differences in drive for muscularity, and internalized homophobia were not found to moderate the Instagram exposure effects on men’s body image. The findings of this study suggest that exposure to Instagram influencers who meet the muscular ideal have an immediate negative effect on men’s body image. Future research should examine the long term impact. Moreover, the finding that exposure to non-muscular influencers has zero harm on men’s body image, advocates for a future of Instagram that encourages a more diverse and body positive representation of men.
3
Introduction
Portrayals of the male body as an object of emulation have increased in mainstream mass media (Murnen & Karaszia, 2017). The presented male body concerns an idealized representation characterized by nearly unrealistic levels of muscularity (Murnen & Karaszia, 2017; Law & Labre, 2002). The sexualization of men is on the rise in today’s media
environment (Linder & Daniels, 2018). This is also clearly visible on social media platforms which play a dominant role in the lives of young men (Tiggeman & Zaccardo, 2018).
Although research among women has consistently shown that exposure to bodies that meet society’s beauty standards is detrimental for women’s body image and self-esteem, research has largely ignored how men are affected by media representations of the ideal male body (Carrotte, Prichard, & Lim, 2017). This gap seems to mirror the common public misbelief that men are less affected than women in regards to eating disorders (Murnen & Karaszia, 2017; Murray, Griffiths, & Mond, 2016).
Consequently, research examining the antecedents of eating disorders among men (e.g. body dissatisfaction, body esteem, …) is limited. Moreover, present research does not fully capture the social media context for men, nor individual differences (Grabe, Ward, & Hyde, 2008; Perloff, 2014). Therefore, this study addresses the following research question: How
does exposure to sexualized and muscular driven Instagram content influence men’s body image?
In line with contemporary media effect theories (Valkenburg & Peter, 2013), it is expected that the effects of exposure to Instagram content are not direct nor uniform for all men. To explain why men are affected differently by Instagram content, ‘the transactional model of social media and body image concerns’ is used as a theoretical framework (Perloff, 2014). The model reasons that whether an effect occurs and the effect’s strength depend partially on media exposure, but can be explained more thoroughly through vulnerability
4
variables on which individuals differ (Valkenburg & Peter, 2013). Some variables make individuals more susceptible to the effects of certain media content and thus, establishing these vulnerability variables enables identifying the boundary conditions underlying the occurrence of media effects. Perloff’s model with its central notion of media effects being conditional stems from the Differential Susceptibility to Media Effects Model (DSMM; Valkenburg & Peter, 2013). Perloff applied the DSMM to examine the impact of social media on women’s body image. This study extends Perloff’s model to the context of men and focuses specifically on Instagram.
Previous research on sociocultural factors and body image has emphasized the role of social comparison in explaining media effects on body image concerns (Botta, 1999;
Thompson, Heinberg, Altabe, & Tantleff-Dunn, 1999). People are internally driven to self-evaluate based on comparing the self with other persons (Festinger, 1954). Instagram is filled with pictures of attractive men and opportunities for social comparisons. The process of upward social comparison with attractive peers or influencers on Instagram negatively affects women’s body image (Brown & Tiggemann, 2016). Therefore, the process of social
comparison is discussed as an essential mediating process.
This study expands prior research on men’s body image and (social) media in several ways. First, research on the topic of men’s body in the context of Instagram lacks (e.g., Franchina & Coco, 2018). A content analysis of fitspiration content on Instagram established that 27.5% of the platform’s fitspiration images depict only male subjects (Carrotte, Prichard, & Lim, 2017). The majority of men in this content are portrayed with high levels of
muscularity and in a sexually objectified manner (Carrotte, Prichard, & Lim, 2017; Tiggemann & Zaccardo, 2018). Numerous studies have shown that exposure to muscular ideals in media negatively affect men’s body image (Blond, 2008; Barlett, Vowels, & Saucier, 2008). Furthermore, a recent study established a negative association between the frequency
5
of viewing fitspiration content on Instagram and men’s body satisfaction (Fatt, Fardouly, & Rapee, 2019). Yet, no experimental approach seems to be adopted to infer the causal relationship of exposure to muscular ideals on Instagram on men’s body image.
Secondly, it has been argued that gay male culture puts more pressure on men
regarding appearance, making them more susceptible to negative effects of media exposure on their body image (e.g. Lanzieri & Cook, 2013). Although these effects have been
demonstrated in previous research (e.g. Duggan & McCreary, 2004; Carper, Negy, & Tantleff-Dunn, 2010), this line of studies ignored possible individual differences among gay men. To provide more nuanced insights this study takes into account various moderators independent of sexual orientation.
Body image is a multidimensional construct that includes both cognitive and affective domains (Cash & Smolak, 2011). Empirical research has recognized cognition and affect as distinct components (Breckler, 1984). Therefore for a complete overview, this study includes both these components as outcome variables. Body esteem concerns affective self-evaluation of the body. The body esteem scale (BES; Franzoi & Shields, 1984) has been a primary research tool for over thirty years, yet its factor structure has not been fully assessed since its creation (Frost, Franzoi, Oswald, & Shields, 2018). However, Frost et al. (2018) did a series of principal components analyses and determined the scale needed to be revised. Their revised measure of body esteem (BES-R) has not yet been validated in detail and it is unknown how it correlates with other more established body image-measures. The psychometric properties of the BES-R are assessed in this study.
Theoretical Framework Navigating the Social Media Space
Although no experimental studies have been conducted examining the effects of Instagram exposure on men’s body image, there are studies exploring this relationship for
6
women (i.e. Brown & Tiggemann, 2016; Robinson et al., 2017; Prichard, McLachlan, Lavis, & Tiggemann, 2017; Slater, Varsani, & Diedrichs, 2017). All of these studies, with the exception of one, proved a negative relationship between Instagram exposure and women’s body image. Additionally, this relationship occurred independent of the poster’s societal status (Brown & Tiggemann, 2016) along with the focus of an image or the presence of text in a post (Prichard et al., 2017) – but did depend on the posing women’s body type (Robinson et al., 2017).
Brown and Tiggemann (2016) found a negative relationship of exposure to Instagram images on women’s body satisfaction independent of their societal status. The images
featured attractive celebrities and peers. Exposure to these images led to lower levels of body satisfaction through social comparison. No differences were found in the effect between celebrity and peer images.
To establish whether the negative relationship between Instagram imagery and women’s body satisfaction is strongest when women are exposed to the female body ideal compared to other body types Robinson et al. (2017) conducted an experimental study. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three sets of images (thin ideal, athletic ideal, or muscular ideal) derived from Instagram. Exposure to idealized media images that
emphasized thinness produced a negative effect on body dissatisfaction – with the athletic ideal images having the strongest effect.
Prichard et al. (2017) examined how different forms of fitspiration images affected women’s body image. Participants were randomly assigned over four conditions which
depicted the body in either a functional or non-functional way (i.e. performing exercise versus posed), with or without accompanying appearance-focused text. Although participants’ state body satisfaction and their mood decreased over time, no differences were found between the different conditions suggesting that the focus of an image nor the presence of text matter.
7
Slater et al. (2017) did not find that exposure to fitspiration images resulted in a poorer body image and mood. The results did indicate negative relationships, however not significant. The contradicting findings of the study may be explained by some decisions in its design. For example, attractiveness of the fitspiration was not accounted for, nor were there any other conditions featuring body types. Additionally, in comparison to the three studies discussed, the Slater study assessed body image differently.
In conclusion, the majority of research on the effects of Instagram exposure on women’s body image indicate a negative relationship. Furthermore, this concerning relationship stresses the importance to close the gender gap in body image research. Transactional Model of Instagram Use and Men’s Body Image concerns
Perloff’s transactional model (2014) is used as a theoretical framework to comprehend the manifestation and underlying processes of the relationship between Instagram exposure and men’s body image. Perloff’s transactional model of social media and body image (2014) identifies six dimensions: individual vulnerability factors, gratifications sought from social media, social media uses, mediating processes, social media effects, and eating disorders. For this study the model is adapted (see Figure 1) to fit the specific needs of men’s body image concerns and Instagram usage. In the next section the mediating processes and individual vulnerability factors are discussed, leading to several hypotheses.
8 Figure 1. Perloff’s transactional model (2014) applied to the context of this study. The
measured variables are marked.
Mediating processes. The mediating processes are the underlying mechanisms explaining the occurrence of social media effects. In this study social comparison and sexual objectification are discussed as the foremost processes to explain why men tend to internalize Instagram content featuring male influencers.
Social comparison theory. A fundamental theory providing a probable explanation to
why Instagram usage affects one’s body image is the social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954). The social comparison theory states that people tend to compare themselves to others regarding attributes such as muscularity and attractiveness. In particular when the others and/or attributes are deemed important to them. The appearance-centered nature of today’s society and the high frequency of exposure to an idealized male body image presented by the media are normalizing attributes that focus on being muscular (e.g. Tiggemann, 2011).
However, there are some prerequisites to be susceptible to the impact of idealized body images presented by the media. First, one has to internalize the presented idealized body
Transactional model of Instagram use and men’s body image concerns
Individual Vulnerability Factors Sexual orientation Internalized homophobia Hypermasculinity Trait social comparison Drive for muscularity
Gratifications sought from Instagram Instagram use Mediating Processes Social comparisons Self-objectification Instagram Effects Negative outcomes: Body esteem Body satisfaction Body image state
9
image, serving as a reference for comparison to one’s own body. Then when one compares oneself to these images and feels societal pressure to achieve the presented idealized body, a schema is formed about the ideal body and how to achieve it. Furthermore, whenever this schema is activated, one returns to the same media sources from where the schema was obtained to get further information on how to meet the ideal image (e.g. López-Guimerà, Levine, Sánchez-Carracedo, & Fauquet, 2010).
Therefore, in the current study when one is exposed to images featuring influencers which are either muscular or non-muscular, individuals will compare themselves to the presented images. Assuming individuals have a pre-existing schema of the ideal male body, muscular images are more likely to activate this schema. In turn, the activation of this schema results in feelings of disappointment as men want to achieve a similar, but unrealistic
aesthetic. Based on the social comparison theory and literature contributing to an advancement of this theory, the first hypothesis of this study reads:
H1: Instagram posts featuring muscular influencers lead to stronger negative body image outcomes (i.e. body image state, body esteem, and body satisfaction) than posts featuring non-muscular influencers.
The objectification theory. The objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997)
is another fundamental theory adding to the explanatory power of Instagram usage affecting body image. This theory argues that prolonged experiences of covert and overt objectification lead to internalization of an objective perspective. Experiences of objectification are seeing and treating a person as an object and solely focusing on observable body attributes. The phenomenon of self-objectification makes people more critical about their own body (e.g. Grabe & Hyde, 2009). Thus, the body of an individual is now judged by others and by oneself Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). In terms of behavior, self-objectification manifests itself in the form of body surveillance – the constant evaluation of one’s body to internalized cultural
10
standards of attractiveness (Tiggemann & Lynch, 2001). The theory was originally developed to explain the process of self-objectification among women. However, men are subject to a similar societal pressure perpetuated by the media (Daniel & Bridges, 2010). Tiggemann and Zaccardo (2018) established that 65% of fitspiration images on Instagram showed some degree of objectification. In this study, it is reasoned that exposure to objectified content of male influencers strengthens the negative relationship between exposure to muscular content and men’s body image (Hypothesis 2).
H2: Instagram posts featuring muscular influencers lead to stronger negative body image outcomes among men than posts featuring non-muscular influencers, and this effect is stronger for sexualized influencers than influencers who are not sexualized.
Individual vulnerability factors. Individual vulnerability factors are variables on which individuals differ and are expected to moderate the effects of Instagram exposure on men’s body image. In this study a distinction is made between individual vulnerability factors that are dependent on sexual orientation and those that are not. In previous research men’s sexual orientation has often been accredited as an explanation why some men experience stronger negative body evaluations than others. However, this rationale does not consider any other individual differences that may have an even stronger moderating effect on the
relationship between Instagram exposure and men’s body image. Therefore, in this section it is firstly discussed how sexual orientation is predicted to affect men’s body image, based on previous research. Then it is discussed how individual differences, beyond sexual orientation, affect men’s body image. These individual differences are drive for muscularity, internalized homophobia, hypermasculinity, and trait social comparison.
Sexual orientation. The first vulnerability factor concerns men’s sexual orientation.
Sexual minorities are overrepresented in men with eating disorders (Feldman & Meyer, 2007). It has been argued that gay male culture puts more pressure on men regarding
11
appearance, which makes them more susceptible to media effects on body image outcome variables (Lanzieri & Cook, 2013). Multiple studies have supported this assumption. For example, Carper et al. (2010) found that gay men scored higher on body dissatisfaction and body-image related anxiety than their heterosexual counterparts. Duggan and McCreary (2004) found similar associations. More recently, Frederick and Essayli (2016) found that gay men were more likely than heterosexual men to report dissatisfaction with their physical appearance and muscle tone and size. Overall, these studies suggest that non-heterosexual men are more prone to negative body image outcomes (Hypotheses 3a and 3b).
H3a: Instagram posts featuring muscular influencers lead to stronger negative body image outcomes than posts featuring muscular influencers, and this effect is stronger for non-heterosexual men than non-heterosexual men.
H3b: Instagram posts featuring sexualized muscular influencers lead to stronger negative body image outcomes than Instagram posts featuring non-sexualized muscular influencers, especially for non-heterosexual men.
Although a negative association between homosexuality and body image outcomes has been demonstrated in multiple studies (e.g. Frederick & Essayli, 2016; Carper, Negy, & Tantleff-Dunn, 2010), this relationship is far from homogeneous. Some studies did not find gay and heterosexual men to differ on body image outcomes (e.g. Yelland & Tiggemann, 2003; Duggan & McCreary, 2004). These mixed results for the role of sexual orientation in body image effect studies may be due to negligence of other, more impactful individual differences among men (Karazsia, Murnen, & Tylka, 2017).
Drive for muscularity. Drive for muscularity concerns one’s desire to achieve a
muscular physique (McCreary & Sasse, 2000). Whereas Yelland and Tiggemann (2003) established higher levels of drive for muscularity among gay men compared to heterosexual men, Duggan and McCreary (2004) did not find a difference. These mixed findings further
12
stress the importance of focusing on individual vulnerability factors independent of sexual orientation. Drive for muscularity is positively associated with body related comparisons, especially when exposed to muscularized bodies (e.g. McCreay & Saucier, 2009; Morrison, Morrison, & Hopkins, 2003). Therefore, it is expected that individuals who show a high drive for muscularity are more affected by exposure to muscularized and sexualized influencers on Instagram (Hypotheses 4a an 4b).
H4a: Instagram posts featuring muscular influencers lead to stronger negative body image outcomes than posts featuring non-muscular influencers, and this effect is stronger for men with high drive for muscularity than men with low drive.
H4b: Instagram posts featuring sexualized muscular influencers lead to stronger negative body image outcomes than posts featuring non-sexualized muscular influencers, especially for men with high drive for muscularity.
Internalized homophobia. The second individual vulnerability factor being considered
is internalized homophobia. This factor is limited to the context of non-heterosexual men since heterosexual men cannot experience heterosexism. In today’s society sexual minority men are simultaneously exposed to both heterosexism and sexism. This occurs through the prevailing cultural stereotypes that sexual minority men are more effeminate than
heterosexual men, and that femininity in men is deviant. These heterosexist attitudes and beliefs towards oneself lead to an intensified societal pressure(Meyer, 2010), evoking feelings of stress, which produce stronger body dissatisfaction (Brewster, Sandil, DeBlaere, Breslow, & Eklund, 2017). Consequently, one can argue that rather than one’s sexual orientation, one’s adherence to conform to stereotypical norms in today’s society is the underlying explanation to individuals with a non-heterosexual sexuality being more likely to have stronger negative body attitudes following media exposure (Hypotheses 5a and 5b).
13 H5a: Instagram posts featuring muscular influencers lead to stronger negative body image outcomes than posts featuring muscular influencers, and this effect is stronger for heterosexual men with stronger heterosexist attitudes and beliefs towards oneself than non-heterosexual men with weaker attitudes and beliefs.
H5b: Instagram posts featuring sexualized muscular influencers lead to stronger negative body image outcomes than posts featuring non-sexualized muscular influencers, especially for non-heterosexual men with stronger heterosexist attitudes and beliefs towards oneself.
Hypermasculinity. Thirdly, one’s adherence to hypermasculine norms is examined as
an individual vulnerability factor in this study. Hypermasculinity concerns one’s tendency to engage in macho and dominant behavior (Mosher & Sirkin, 1984). Following research on sexy online self-representation(van Oosten, Vandenbosch, & Peter, 2017), a similar line of reasoning as with internalized homophobia can be applied to explain potential individual differences in effect strength of media exposure on men’s body image through
hypermasculinity. It is argued that when men are more inclined to live up to hypermasculine norms they experience greater societal pressure to conform to narrow definitions of how a man should act and look – including a muscular physique (e.g. Thompson & Pleck, 1995; Meinecke, 1981; Wienke, 1998). A high perceived pressure to conform to appearance-based media ideals, evoke feelings of stress and are associated with body image problems (Warren & Rios, 2013). Therefore, it is expected that in this study men with higher levels of obedience to hypermasculine norms experience more societal pressure to conform to the ideal male body, consequently experiencing negative body outcomes more strongly (Hypothesis 6a and 6b).
H6a: Instagram posts featuring muscular influencers lead to stronger negative body image outcomes than posts featuring non-muscular influencers, and this effect is stronger for men with high adherence to hypermasculine norms than men with low adherence.
14 H6b: Instagram posts featuring sexualized muscular influencers lead to stronger negative body image outcomes than posts featuring non-sexualized muscular influencers, especially for men with high adherence to hypermasculine norms.
Trait social comparison. Finally, this study considers the individual vulnerability
factor trait social comparison. Trait social comparison concerns one’s tendency to compare one’s own appearance to that of others. Research examining the effects of appearance-based comparisons to muscular and lean idealized male bodies among men found that exposure to images depicting these ideals was associated with an increase in body dissatisfaction, moderated by trait social comparison (Galiotho & Crowther, 2013). Based on the social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) and literature studying the moderating role of trait social comparison (e.g. Galiotho & Crowther, 2013; Dittmar & Howard, 2004; Fitzsimmons-Craft et al., 2015) it is expected that individuals with higher levels of trait social comparison
experience greater negative body image outcomes after exposure to muscularized and sexualized Instagram content (Hypotheses 7a and 7b).
H7a: Instagram posts featuring muscular influencers lead to stronger negative body images outcomes than posts featuring non-muscular influencers, and this effect is stronger for men with high levels of trait social comparison than men with low levels.
H7b: Instagram posts featuring sexualized muscular influencers lead to stronger negative body image outcomes than posts featuring non-sexualized muscular influencers, especially for men with high levels of trait social comparison.
Method Participants and Procedure
A total of 165 men with a mean age of M = 24.70 years, SD = 7.76, took part in this 2 x 2 + 1 between-subjects experiment. Approximately 50% of these participants did not identify as heterosexual (n = 73). Participants were recruited through the student pool and the
15
researcher’s personal network. They were asked to participate in an online experiment on Instagram influencers and were told that the study was designed to get insights in which style of posting is most effective for male influencers to reach their audience. Each of the
participants was exposed to thirteen Instagram posts.
Participants were randomly assigned across five conditions: muscular non-sexualized, muscular sexualized, non-muscular non-sexualized, and non-muscular sexualized influencers and a control condition which consisted of landscapes. An influencer was labeled as muscular when he had a low body fat percentage and muscles were well-defined (Vandenbosch,
Vervloessem, & Eggermont, 2013). Sexualization was characterized by sexually suggestive poses (e.g. being shirtless, gazing flirtatiously, etc.) and/or photo angles that focus on
sexualized body parts (e.g. the crotch, nipples, etc.). Immediately after exposure to the posts, participants completed a survey – including questions to increase the credibility of the cover story.
Stimuli
The stimuli were taken from existing public Instagram accounts of male influencers to enhance the ecological validity of the study. Comments and likes were held constant. To ensure the attractiveness of the male influencers was the same over the different conditions and for a manipulation check, a pilot study was conducted (N = 10). Participants rated the level of attractiveness of each influencer on a 10-point semantic differential scale ranging from 1 (not attractive) to 10 (very attractive). Each participant allocated influencers between four experimental conditions (i.e. sexualized muscular, non-sexualized muscular, sexualized non-muscular, or non-sexualized non-muscular). From twenty Instagram posts, thirteen were selected per condition. Posts that deviated too much from the average attractive score of each condition were eliminated from the study.
16
Susceptibility Variables. The susceptibility and outcome variables that were assessed in this experiment are listed below.
Sexual orientation. A participant’s sexual orientation was assessed using an adjusted
version of the Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 2003). Participants were asked to what degree they are attracted to men or women. Answer options consisted of ‘exclusively to men’, ‘mainly to men, but also attracted to women’, ‘equally to both men and women’, ‘mainly to women, but also attracted to men’, and ‘exclusively to women’. The final scale was dichotomized into 0 (exclusively heterosexual) and 1
(non-heterosexual). A total of 73 men identified as non-heterosexual (55.7%).
Drive for muscularity. The desire to achieve a muscular physique was measured with
an adapted version of the Drive for Muscularity Scale to the metric system (DMS; McCreary & Sasse, 2000). The DMS assesses both attitudes (e.g. “I wish that I were more muscular”) and behaviors (“I drink weight gain or protein shakes”). Participants responded to fifteen items using a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (always). A factor analysis was conducted to identify the underlying structure. The fifteen items that measured drive for muscularity formed two components. The first component assessed one’s attitude and had an eigenvalue of 4.74 and explained for 31.6% the variance across seven items. The second component assessed one’s behavior and had an eigenvalue of 4.35, which explained the variance for 29.0% across seven items. Since the item that measured one’s anabolic steroids intake did not have a factor loading of .45 or above it was excluded. Then, two reliable scales were computed for the DMS-components assessing one’s attitude (DMS-A), α = .92, M = 3.14, SD = 1.17, and behavior (DMS-B), α = .87, M = 2.20, SD = 1.03. For both scales, high scores reflected a high drive for muscularity.
Internalized homophobia. Internalized homophobia was assessed using the
17
participants responded to nine items (e.g. “I feel alienated from myself because of being attracted to men.”) using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The IHP was reliable, α = .85, M = 2.30, SD = 1.14. High scores reflected high internalized homophobia.
Hypermasculinity. To measure a macho personality a shortened version of the
Hypermasculinity Inventory (Mosher & Sirkin, 1984) was used. Participants responded to four items (e.g. “If you insult me, be prepared to back it up.”) using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (disagree completely) to 7 (agree completely). The scale for hypermasculinity was found to be reliable, α = .73, M = 3.92, SD = 1.38. High scores reflected high obedience to hypermasculine norms.
Trait social comparison. To asses a participant’s appearance comparison tendencies
as a trait a shortened version of the Physical Appearance Comparison Scale-Revised (Schaefer & Thompson, 2013) was used. Participants responded to three items (e.g. “When I’m out in public, I compare my body size to the body size of others.”) using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The scale for trait social comparison (TSC) was reliable, α = .85, M = 2.62, SD = .96. High scores reflected a high tendency of comparing one’s own appearance to others.
Outcome Variables. The susceptibility and outcome variables that were assessed in the current experiment are listed below.
Body image state. To measure momentary body image experiences the Body Image
States Scale was used (Cash, Fleming, Alindogan, Steadman, & Whitehead, 2002). Participants responded to six items (e.g. “Right now I feel […] with my physical
appearance.”) that assessed evaluative domains concerning one’s current body experience. Each item was rated on a 9-point bipolar Likert scale with semantic anchors (e.g.
18 dissatisfied/satisfied). The scale for body image state (BIS) was reliable, α = .88, M = 5.92, SD = 1.46. High scores reflected a high momentary satisfaction with one’s own appearance.
Body satisfaction. The cognitive self-evaluation of the body was assessed using the
Male Body Dissatisfaction Scale (Hallsworth et al., 2005). Participants responded to nine items (e.g. “I think my thighs are too small”) using a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (always). The three negatively framed items were reverse coded. The scale for body satisfaction (BSAT) was reliable, α = .75, M = 3.62, SD = .76. High scores reflected a high satisfaction with one’s own appearance.
Body esteem. The affective self-evaluation of the body was assessed using the Body
Esteem Scale Revised (BES-R; Frost, Franzoi, Oswald, & Shields, 2017). Participants rate their degree of satisfaction to 23 body parts and functions using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (have strong negative feelings) to 5 (have strong positive feelings). A total of three dimensions can be distinguished, measuring one’s attitude toward one’s physical
attractiveness, upper body strength, and physical condition. The BES-R is an adaptation of the widely used Body Esteem Scale (BES; Franzoi & Shields, 1984). However, since the scale has only been developed recently both its validity and reliability should be explored in more detail (Frost et al., 2017). In this study the psychometric properties of the BES-R were re-evaluated through a partial confirmatory factor analysis (PCFA; see Appendix B).
The PCFA did not support a three factor model for the BES-R items. Therefore, no confirmatory factor analysis was conducted, nor was it analyzed how the BES-R related to other body image outcome measures. Moreover, in combination with the inconsistent construct validity of the BES-R, it was decided to exclude body esteem as outcome variable from all further analyses.
Covariates. This study considered age, body mass index (BMI), and Instagram
19
and weight (in kg). BMI was calculated using the formula: weight / (height*height). Instagram frequency was assessed by asking participants to indicate how often they used Instagram on a daily basis (van den Eijnden, Lemmens, & Valkenburg, 2016). Answer options consisted of never (0), less than once a day (1), 1–2 times (2), 3–5 times (3), 6–10
times (4), 11–20 times (5), 21–40 times (6), and more than 40 times a day (7).
Manipulation Check. The manipulation check for both muscularization and sexualization were measured through single items asking participants to what extent the influencers were muscular/sexualized. These items could be answered using a Likert-scale ranging from 1 (not muscular/sexualized) to 5 (very muscular/sexualized).
Analytical Procedure
To test whether the manipulations were experienced as intended, independent t-tests were conducted – in both instances equal variances were assumed. Through Pearson’s
correlations matrices it was determined whether any covariates were present which should be accounted for while testing the hypotheses. The cut-off point for a reasonable correlation was set to 0.30 (e.g. Akoglu, 2018).
To test the formulated hypotheses two multivariate general linear models (GLM) were created. The first model consisted of the manipulated variables muscularization and
sexualization; the susceptibility variables sexual orientation, drive for muscularity,
hypermasculinity, and trait social comparison; the outcome variables body image state and body satisfaction. For each independent variable the main effects on the outcome variables were analyzed. Additionally, the model also analyzed the presence of two and three-way interactions between the susceptibility variables and the manipulated variables. Thus, allowing to test for all hypotheses except the fifth.
The second model consisted of the same manipulated and outcome variables, but only included the susceptibility variable internalized homophobia which was assessed among
non-20
heterosexual men only. The second model analyzed the presence of two and three-way interactions between internalized homophobia and the manipulated variables.
The manipulated variables muscularization and sexualization were inserted into the GLM models as categorical variables, i.e. control condition (0),
non-muscularized/non-sexualized (1), and muscularized/non-muscularized/non-sexualized (2). Post hoc tests were conducted, to interpret
significant main effects of nominal variables. Linear regression analyses were conducted, to interpret significant interactions.
Preliminary analyses. The outcome variables showed multivariate normality, the covariance matrices were homogenous (i.e. Box’s M was significant for the created GLM models), and observations were independent from each other. Moreover, a moderate positive correlation was found between body image state and body satisfaction, r = .48, p < .001. Therefore, the assumptions were met to conduct multivariate analyses. Finally, the numeric susceptibility variables were centered to prevent multicollinearity issues to occur while testing for interactions.
Preliminary descriptive analysis. A correlation matrix was created (see Table 1) to get
a general overview of how the numeric vulnerability variables related to the outcome
variables. Men with high scores on the attitude component of drive for muscularity (DMS-A), trait social comparison (TSC), and internalized homophobia (IHP) reported lower momentary body satisfaction (BIS), whereas men with high scores on the behavioral component of drive for muscularity (DMS-B) reported higher BIS. Moreover, men with high scores on DMS-A and TSC also reported lower body satisfaction (BSAT).
Table 1.
Correlations Between the Numeric Variables and Outcome Variables
Variables Body Image State Body Satisfaction
21 DMS-B .21* .03 Hypermasculinity .07 -.04 TSC IHP -25** -.37** -.26** -.16
Note. DMS-A = drive for muscularity attitude scale, DMS-B = drive for muscularity behavior
scale, TSC = trait social comparison, and IHP = internalized homophobia. * p <.05; ** p
<.001.
Results Manipulation Check
Participants in the muscularized conditions experienced the influencers as more muscular (M = 4.12, SD = 0.75) than in the non-muscularized conditions (M = 3.09, SD = 0.96), t(102) = -6.07, p < .001, 95% CI[-1.36, -.69]. Participants in the sexualized conditions experienced the influencers as more sexualized (M = 4.06, SD = 1.18) than in the non-sexualized conditions (M = 3.16, SD = 1.01), t(102) = -4.17, p < .001, 95% CI[-1.33, -.47]. Participants experienced the manipulations as intended.
Identifying Covariates
Non-significant correlations were between Instagram frequency and the body image outcome variables. Older participants showed higher BSAT scores, r =- .20, p = .022, and men with higher BMI reported lower BIS scores, r =- .25, p = .006. All significant
correlations were below .30, consequently no variables were included as covariates. Effect of Muscularization and Sexualization
See Table 2 for an overview of the mean scores for BIS and BSAT per condition. The results of the first GLM model are presented by outcome variable in Tables 5 (BIS) and 5 (BSAT).
In line with H1 an effect was for muscularization on BIS, however not on BSAT. Men exposed to muscularized influencers (M = 5.56, SD = 1.53) had significant lower BIS scores than men exposed to non-muscularized influencers (M = 6.33, SD = 1.09).
22
Table 2.
Mean Scores per Condition and Sexual Orientation on the Body Image Outcome Variables
Condition Sexual Orientation
BIS M (SD)
BSAT M (SD) Muscular Sexualized Total 5.70 (1.47) 3.49 (.66)
Non-Heterosexual 5.48 (1.60) 3.52 (.72) Heterosexual 6.03 (1.28) 3.44 (.60) Muscular Non-Sexualized Total 5.39 (1.61) 3.63 (.72) Non-Heterosexual 5.32 (1.76) 3.56 (.62) Heterosexual 5.39 (1.61) 3.70 (.84) Non-Muscular Sexualized Total 6.32 (1.17) 3.67 (.65) Non-Heterosexual 6.32 (1.29) 3.69 (.61) Heterosexual 6.31 (1.13) 3.65 (.70) Non-Muscular Non-Sexualized Total 6.35 (1.02) 3.79 (.86) Non-Heterosexual 6.28 (1.20) 3.83 (.61) Heterosexual 6.52 (.75) 3.71 (1.15)
Control Total 6.18 (1.50) 3.83 (.81)
Non-Heterosexual 5.56 (1.85) 3.83 (1.01) Heterosexual 6.80 (.66) 3.83 (.89)
Note. Ns range from 22 to 27 per condition due to occasional missing data. BIS = body image
state. BSAT = body satisfaction.
In contrast to H2, no interaction was between the muscularization and sexualization of influencers on either BIS or BSAT. Additionally, there was no effect of sexualization on either outcome variable.
23
In contrast to H3a, no interaction was between muscularization and sexual orientation. Neither was H3b supported, there was no three-way interaction between muscularization and sexualization and participants’ sexual orientation.
Moderation by Drive for Muscularity
In contrast to H4a, no interaction was between muscularization and A or DMS-B. Neither was H4b supported, there was no three-way interaction between muscularization and sexualization and DMS-A or DMS-B.
Moderation by Obedience to Hypermasculine Norms
An interaction was between muscularization and hypermasculinity on BSAT, however not on BIS. To interpret the interaction a linear regression analysis was conducted with three product term variables (see Table 3). However, to do this first three dummy variables had to be created for muscularization: dummy 1 (1 if exposed to muscular influencers, 0 otherwise), dummy 2 (1 if exposed to non-muscular influencers, 0 otherwise), and dummy 3 (1 if control condition, 0 otherwise). The product term variables were obtained by multiplying the dummy variables by the centered hypermasculinity scores. In line with H6a (see Figure 2), men with high levels of obedience to hypermasculine norms scored lower on body satisfaction when exposed to non-muscularized influencers (M = 3.57, SD = 0.77), than men with low levels (M = 4.06, SD = 0.79). H6b was not supported, there was no three-way interaction between muscularization and sexualization and hypermasculinity.
Table 3.
Regression Analysis Summary Predicting Body Satisfaction
Product Term B 95% CI β t p
Constant 3.63 3.50, 3.75 - 57.15 <.001
Muscularized * Hypermasculinity
24 Non-Muscularized * Hypermasculinity -0.36 -0.63, -0.09 -.23 -2.67 .009 Control * Hypermasculinity 0.05 -0.16, 0.00 .04 0.48 .633
Note. R² adjusted = .058 and CI = confidence interval.
Figure 2. Visualization of the interaction between muscularization and hypermasculinity on
body satisfaction. Each quartile represents 25% of the observations. HM = hypermasculinity. Moderation by Trait Social Comparison
An interaction was between muscularization of influencers and TSC on BIS, but not on BSAT. To interpret the interaction a linear regression analysis was conducted with three product term variables (see Table 4). In line with H7a (see Figure 3), men with high levels of TSC scored lower on BIS when exposed to muscularized influencers (M = 4.68; SD = 1.30), than men with low levels (M = 6.44; SD = 1.15). H7b was not supported, there was no three-way interaction between muscularization and sexualization of influencers and TSC.
Table 4.
Regression Analysis Summary Predicting Body Image State
Product Term B 95% CI β t p 3,00 3,20 3,40 3,60 3,80 4,00 4,20 Quartile 1 (Lowest HM Scores)
Quartile 2 Quartile 3 Quartile 4 (Highest HM Scores) Estimated Marginal Means of Body Satisfaction
25
Constant 5.93 5.70, 6.17 - 49.55 <.001
Muscularized * TSC -1.56 -2.35, -0.76 -.32 -3.87 <.001 Non-Muscularized * TSC 0.05 -0.71, 0.80 .01 0.12 .904 Control * TSC -0.43 -1.08, 0.23 -.11 -1.28 .201
Note. R² adjusted = .058, CI = confidence interval, and TSC = trait social comparison.
Figure 3. Visualization of the interaction between muscularization and trait social comparison
on body image state. Each quartile represents 25% of the observations. TSC = trait social comparison.
Moderation by Internalized Homophobia
The second GLM model was used to test H5a and b. There was a main effect of IHP on BIS, F (1, 66) = 8.40, p =.005, η2 = .114, but not on BSAT, F (1, 66) = 1.04, p = .312, η2 = .016. In contrast to H5a, no interaction was between muscularization and IHP on the outcome variables, BIS: F (2, 66) = 1.32, p = .273, η2 = .039 and BSAT: F (2, 66) = 0.61, p
= .549, η2 = .018. Neither was H5b supported, no three-way interaction was between muscularization and sexualization and IHP, BIS: F (2, 66) = 1.14, p = .325, η2
= .034; BSAT: F (2, 64) = 0.12, p = .892, η2 = .004. Table 5. 4,50 5,00 5,50 6,00 6,50 7,00 Quartile 1 (Lowest TSC Scores)
Quartile 2 Quartile 3 Quartile 4 (Highest TSC Scores) Estimated Marginal Means of Body Image State
26 MANOVA Summary Table for Body Image State
Source df F p η2 Main Effects Muscularized 1, 122 8.50 .004 .081 Sexualized 1, 122 0.93 .337 .010 Sexual Orientation 1, 122 0.81 .776 .001 DMS-A 1, 122 24.66 <.001 .203 DMS-B 1, 122 17.83 <.001 .155 Hypermasculinity 1, 122 0.05 .830 <.001 TSC 1, 122 3.82 .053 .038 2-Way Interactions Muscularized x Sexualized 1, 122 1.04 .319 .010
Muscularized x Sexual Orientation 2, 122 1.08 .343 .022
Muscularized x DMS-A 2, 122 2.85 .063 .056
Muscularized x DMS-B 2, 122 1.18 .313 .024
Muscularized x Hypermasculinity 2, 122 0.33 .722 .007
Muscularized x TSC 2, 122 3.90 .023 .075
3-Way Interactions
Muscularized x Sexualized x Sexual Orientation 4, 122 0.73 .486 .015
Muscularized x Sexualized x DMS-A 2, 122 0.34 .710 .007
Muscularized x Sexualized x DMS-B 2, 122 0.95 .389 .019
Muscularized x Sexualized x Hypermasculinity 2, 122 0.04 .963 .001
Muscularized x Sexualized x TSC 2, 122 0.15 .862 .003
Note. DMS-A = drive for muscularity attitude scale, DMS-B = drive for muscularity behavior
scale, and TSC = trait social comparison. Table 6.
27 Source df F p η2 Main Effects Muscularized 1, 122 0.34 .559 .004 Sexualized 1, 122 0.01 .940 <.001 Sexual Orientation 1, 122 3.77 .055 .037 DMS-A 1, 122 24.24 <.001 .200 DMS-B 1, 122 10.07 .002 .094 Hypermasculinity 1, 122 0.95 .333 .010 TSC 1, 122 4.39 .039 .043 2-Way Interactions Muscularized x Sexualized 1, 122 0.11 .747 .001
Muscularized x Sexual Orientation 2, 122 0.21 .814 .004
Muscularized x DMS-A 2, 122 0.59 .556 .012
Muscularized x DMS-B 2, 122 1.28 .283 .026
Muscularized x Hypermasculinity 2, 122 3.75 .027 .072
Muscularized x TSC 2, 122 .22 .604 .010
3-Way Interactions
Muscularized x Sexualized x Sexual Orientation 4, 122 0.03 .969 .001
Muscularized x Sexualized x DMS-A 2, 122 0.26 .776 .005
Muscularized x Sexualized x DMS-B 2, 122 0.32 .726 .007
Muscularized x Sexualized x Hypermasculinity 2, 122 0.19 .827 .004
Muscularized x Sexualized x TSC 2, 122 0.08 .928 .002
Note. DMS-A = drive for muscularity attitude scale, DMS-B = drive for muscularity behavior
scale, and TSC = trait social comparison.
Discussion
This study assessed the immediate effect of exposure to Instagram influencers on men’s body image. Although less pronounced than anticipated, exposure to Instagram influencers was found to negatively affect men’s body image. The findings indicate that exposure to
28
muscularized influencers induced a more negative momentary body image (BIS) than
exposure to non-muscularized influencers. The effect of muscularization on body satisfaction (BSAT) was not significant. Sexualization of influencers seems unimportant in this process.
In contrast to research examining effects of Instagram exposure on women’s body image (e.g. Robinson et al. 2017; Brown & Tiggemann, 2016), no significant negative
relationship was found for idealized media images on BSAT among men. These contradicting findings among men and women emphasize the importance of not simply generalizing body image related findings across gender. Although no negative effect was found for
muscularization on BSAT, there was on BIS. A possible explanation why stronger effects were found on BIS than on BSAT is that BIS is more fluid and, thus responsive to situational contexts (e.g. Cash et al., 2002). Furthermore, BSAT concerns cognitive evaluation of body image. Participants were explicitly asked to think about their own body. Cognitive evaluations are less accessible and require deeper thinking, which in turn lead to more critical and rational driven evaluations (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Verplanken, Hofstee, & Janssen, 1998). Making it less likely that participants alter their attitude because of exposure to superficial cues.
In addition to analyzing the direct effects of the manipulated variables on the outcome variables this study examined the expected moderating effects of vulnerability factors on the effect of Instagram exposure on men’s body image. A distinction was made between
vulnerability factors either dependent on sexual orientation, or not.
Previous research found mixed results for the role of sexual orientation in body image media effect studies (e.g. Fredrick & Essayli, 2016; Yelland & Tiggemann, 2003). This study found no differences between heterosexual and non-heterosexual men in the effect of
muscularization and sexualization of Instagram influencers on either BIS or BSAT.
The insignificant difference between heterosexual and non-heterosexual men may be due to a negligence of other, more impactful vulnerability factors men differ on (Karazsia,
29
Murnen, & Tylka, 2017). Therefore, this study also analyzed how individual differences on drive for muscularity, internalized homophobia, hypermasculinity, and trait social comparison affected men’s body image. Internalized homophobia was only assessed among
non-heterosexual men.
No significant two-way interactions were between muscularization and drive for muscularity and internalized homophobia on either of the outcome variables. Additionally, a two-way interaction was found between muscularization and hypermasculinity on BSAT, but not on BIS. Instagram posts featuring muscular influencers led to lower BSAT scores than Instagram posts featuring non-muscular influencers, especially for men with high adherence to hypermasculine norms. Hypermasculine norms thus evoke pressure to conform to
appearance based media ideals (Warren & Rios, 2013).
Additionally, a two-way interaction was between muscularization and trait social comparison on BIS, but not on BSAT. The tendency to compare oneself to others negatively moderated the influence of muscularization on BIS. Instagram posts featuring muscular influencers induced lower BIS scores than those featuring non-muscular influencers, especially for men scoring high on trait social comparison. They are thus more likely to internalize and compare themselves to idealized body images presented by the media. No significant three-way interactions were found between muscularization, sexualization and any of the vulnerability variables.
This study re-evaluated the psychometric properties of the revised body esteem scale (BES-R). Opposed to Frost et al. (2018), the scale was neither reliable nor valid, motivating the exclusion of the BES-R in consequent analyses. It is recommended to reassess the BES-R and develop a valid scale containing more factors.
30
The significant moderation effects support the consensus in contemporary media effect theories (e.g. Valkenburg & Peter, 2013; Perloff, 2014) that media effects on body image are not direct nor uniform for all men. Future research should examine the effects of other factors that may facilitate certain body image outcomes.
Perloff’s transactional model of social media and body image (2014) identified various underlying processes. Future research should measure the mediating processes between Instagram exposure and men’s body image. To ensure participants internalize the shown Instagram posts their level of media internalization should be assessed (e.g. De Jesus et al., 2015). Media internalization conveys an individual’s internalization of body ideals as viewed in media (Thompson, van den Bert, Roehrig, Guarda, & Heinberg, 2004). The State Social Comparison Scale assesses the amount of appearance comparison participants immediately engaged in after media exposure (Tiggemann & McGill, 2004). Previous research found that state social comparison mediated negative body image outcomes among women (e.g. Betz, Sabik & Ramsey, 2019). Future research should analyze whether this mediation is also present regarding men’s body image.
To determine the development of the negative effect of Instagram exposure to muscularized influencers on BIS a longitudinal study should be conducted. Moreover, a longitudinal study would allow testing for cumulative effects of muscularization on BSAT. The effect might only become evident over a longer period of time due to the fixedness of BSAT (e.g. Tiggemann & Lynch, 2001). Through Instagram tracking software (e.g.
snoopreport) and assessment of body image over regular time intervals one can conduct time-series analyses to establish longitudinal exposure effects of BIS.
Conclusion
In sum, this study indicated some negative effects for the muscularized ideal on men’s body image, but no negative effects for exposure to less idealized body types (i.e.
non-31
muscularized). A positive body image is positively associated with both mental and physical health among men (Gillen, 2015). The finding that exposure to non-muscular influencers has zero harm on men’s body image, thus advocates for a future of Instagram that encourages a more diverse and body positive representation of men.
32
References
Akoglu, H. (2018). User's guide to correlation coefficients. Turkish journal of emergency
medicine, 18(3), 91-93. doi:10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001
Barlett, C. P., Vowels, C. L., & Saucier, D. A. (2008). Meta-analyses of the effects of media images on men's body-image concerns. Journal of social and clinical
psychology, 27(3), 279-310. doi:10.1521/jscp.2008.27.3.279
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,
107(2), 238–246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Betz, D. E., Sabik, N. J., & Ramsey, L. R. (2019). Ideal comparisons: Body ideals harm women’s body image through social comparison. Body Image, 29, 100–109. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.03.004
Blond, A. (2008). Impacts of exposure to images of ideal bodies on male body dissatisfaction: A review. Body Image, 5(3), 244–250. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2008.02.003
Botta, R. A. (1999). Television images and adolescent girls’ body image disturbance. Journal
33
Breckler, S. J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct components of attitude. Journal of personality and social psychology, 47(6), 1191-1205. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1191
Brewster, M. E., Sandil, R., DeBlaere, C., Breslow, A., & Eklund, A. (2017). “Do you even lift, bro?” Objectification, minority stress, and body image concerns for sexual minority men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 18(2), 87–98.
doi:10.1037/men0000043
Brown, Z., & Tiggemann, M. (2016). Attractive celebrity and peer images on Instagram: Effect on women's mood and body image. Body Image, 19, 37-43.
doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.08.007
Carper, T. L. M., Negy, C., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (2010). Relations among media influence, body image, eating concerns, and sexual orientation in men: A preliminary
investigation. Body Image, 7(4), 301–309. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2010.07.002
Carrotte, E. R., Prichard, I., & Lim, M. S. C. (2017). “Fitspiration” on social media: A content analysis of gendered images. Journal of medical Internet research, 19(3), e95. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6368
Cash, T., Fleming, E., Alindogan, J., Steadman, L., & Whitehead, A. (2002). Beyond Body Image as a Trait: The Development and Validation of the Body Image States Scale.
Eating Disorders, 10(2), 103–113. doi:10.1080/10640260290081678
Cash, T. F. & Smolak, L. (Eds.). (2011). Understanding body images: historical and
34
Daniel, S., & Bridges, S. K. (2010). The drive for muscularity in men: Media influences and objectification theory. Body Image, 7(1), 32–38. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.08.003
De Jesus, A. Y., Ricciardelli, L. A., Frisén, A., Smolak, L., Yager, Z., Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M., … Gattario, K. H. (2015). Media internalization and conformity to traditional masculine norms in relation to body image concerns among men. Eating Behaviors,
18, 137–142. doi:10.1016/j.eatbeh.2015.04.004
Dittmar, H., & Howard, S. (2004). Thin-ideal internalization and social comparison tendency as moderators of media models' impact on women's body-focused anxiety. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(6), 768-791. doi:10.1521/jscp.23.6.768.54799
Duggan, S. J., & McCreary, D. R. (2004). Body Image, Eating Disorders, and the Drive for Muscularity in Gay and Heterosexual Men. Journal of Homosexuality, 47(3-4), 45–58. doi:10.1300/j082v47n03_03
Fatt, S. J., Fardouly, J., & Rapee, R. M. (2019). #malefitspo: Links between viewing fitspiration posts, muscular-ideal internalisation, appearance comparisons, body
satisfaction, and exercise motivation in men. New Media & Society, 21(6), 1311–1325. doi:10.1177/1461444818821064
Feldman, M. B., & Meyer, I. H. (2007). Eating disorders in diverse lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 40(3), 218–226.
doi:10.1002/eat.20360
Festinger, L. (1954). A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140. doi:10.1177/001872675400700202
35
Franchina, V., & Coco, G. L. (2018). The influence of social media use on body image concerns. International Journal of Psychoanalysis and Education, 10(1), 5-14.
Franzoi, S. L., & Shields, S. A. (1984). The Body Esteem Scale: Multidimensional Structure and Sex Differences in a College Population. Journal of Personality Assessment,
48(2), 173–178. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4802_12
Frederick, D. A., & Essayli, J. H. (2016). Male body image: The roles of sexual orientation and body mass index across five national U.S. Studies. Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 17(4), 336–351. doi:10.1037/men0000031
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women's lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of women quarterly,
21(2), 173-206. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x
Frost, K. A., Franzoi, S. L., Oswald, D. L., & Shields, S. A. (2018). Revising the Body Esteem Scale with a US college student sample: Evaluation, validation, and uses for the BES-R. Sex Roles, 78(1-2), 1-17. doi:10.1007/s11199-017-0776-5
Galioto, R., & Crowther, J. H. (2013). The effects of exposure to slender and muscular images on male body dissatisfaction. Body Image, 10(4), 566–573.
doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.07.009
Gillen, M. M. (2015). Associations between positive body image and indicators of men's and women's mental and physical health. Body Image, 13, 67-74.
36
Grabe, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2009). Body Objectification, MTV, and Psychological Outcomes Among Female Adolescents1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(12), 2840 2858. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00552.x
Grabe, S., Ward, L. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2008). The role of the media in body image concerns among women: A meta-analysis of experimental and correlational studies.
Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 460–476. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.460
Hallsworth, L., Wade, T., & Tiggemann, M. (2005). Individual differences in male body image: An examination of self-objectification in recreational body builders. British
Journal of Health Psychology, 10(3), 453–465. doi:10.1348/135910705x26966
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.424
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1981). LISREL V: Analysis of linear structural relationships
by the method of maximum likelihood. Chicago, IL: National Educational Resources.
Karazsia, B. T., Murnen, S. K., & Tylka, T. L. (2017). Is body dissatisfaction changing across time? A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 143(3), 293–320. doi:10.1037/bul0000081
Lanzieri, N., & Cook, B. J. (2013). Examination of muscularity and body fat depictions in magazines that target heterosexual and gay men. Body Image, 10(2), 251–254. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2012.12.003
37
Law, C., & Labre, M. P. (2002). Cultural Standards of Attractiveness: A Thirty-Year Look at Changes in Male Images in Magazines. Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 79(3), 697–711. doi:10.1177/107769900207900310
Linder, J. R., & Daniels, E. A. (2018). Sexy vs. sporty: the effects of viewing media images of athletes on self-objectification in college students. Sex Roles, 78(1-2), 27-39.
doi:10.1007/s11199-017-0774-7
Martin, J. L., & Dean, L. (1987). Summary of measures: Mental health effects of AIDS on at
risk homosexual men. Unpublished manuscript. Columbia University, Mailman School
of Public Health.
McCreary, D. R., & Sasse, D. K. (2000). An Exploration of the Drive for Muscularity in Adolescent Boys and Girls. Journal of American College Health, 48(6), 297–304. doi:10.1080/07448480009596271
McCreary, D. R., & Saucier, D. M. (2009). Drive for muscularity, body comparison, and social physique anxiety in men and women. Body Image, 6(1), 24–30.
doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2008.09.002
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
Morrison, T. G., Morrison, M. A., & Hopkins, C. (2003). Striving for bodily perfection? An exploration of the drive for muscularity in Canadian men. Psychology of Men &
38
Mosher, D. L., & Sirkin, M. (1984). Measuring a macho personality constellation. Journal of
Research in Personality, 18(2), 150–163. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(84)90026-6
Murray, S. B., Griffiths, S., & Mond, J. M. (2016). Evolving eating disorder
psychopathology: Conceptualising muscularity-oriented disordered eating. The British
Journal of Psychiatry, 208(5), 414-415. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.115.168427
Murnen, S. K., & Karazsia, B. T. (in press). A review of research on men’s body image and drive for muscularity. In R. F. Levant & Y. J. Wong (Eds.), The psychology of men
and masculinities (pp. 229 – 257). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association. doi:10.1037/0000023-009
Perloff, R. M. (2014). Social media effects on young women’s body image concerns: Theoretical perspectives and an agenda for research. Sex Roles, 71(11-12), 363-377. doi:10.1007/s11199-014-0384-6
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Communication and persuasion (pp. 1-24). New York, NY: Springer.
Prichard, I., McLachlan, A. C., Lavis, T., & Tiggemann, M. (2017). The Impact of Different Forms of #fitspiration Imagery on Body Image, Mood, and Self-Objectification among Young Women. Sex Roles, 78(11-12), 789–798. doi:10.1007/s11199-017-0830-3
Robinson, L., Prichard, I., Nikolaidis, A., Drummond, C., Drummond, M., & Tiggemann, M. (2017). Idealised media images: The effect of fitspiration imagery on body satisfaction and exercise behaviour. Body Image, 22, 65–71. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.06.001
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. R., & Martin, C. E. (2003). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.
39
López-Guimerà, G., Levine, M. P., Sánchez-carracedo, D., & Fauquet, J. (2010). Influence of Mass Media on Body Image and Eating Disordered Attitudes and Behaviors in
Females: A Review of Effects and Processes. Media Psychology, 13(4), 387–416. doi:10.1080/15213269.2010.525737
Meinecke, C. E. (1981). Socialized to die younger? Hypermasculinity and men's health. The
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 60(4), 241-245.
doi:10.1002/j.2164-4918.1981.tb00291.x
Sastre, A. (2014). Towards a Radical Body Positive: Reading the online “body positive movement”. Feminist Media Studies, 14(6), 929-943.
doi:10.1080/14680777.2014.883420
Schaefer, L. M., & Thompson, J. K. (2014). The development and validation of the Physical Appearance Comparison Scale-Revised (PACS-R). Eating Behaviors, 15(2), 209–217. doi:10.1016/j.eatbeh.2014.01.001
Slater, A., Varsani, N., & Diedrichs, P. C. (2017). #fitspo or #loveyourself? The impact of fitspiration and compassion Instagram images on women’s body image, self-compassion, and mood. Body Image, 22, 87–96. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.06.004
Smolak, L., Murnen, S. K., & Thompson, J. K. (2005). Sociocultural Influences and Muscle Building in Adolescent Boys. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6(4), 227–239. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.6.4.227
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural Model Evaluation and Modification: An Interval Estimation Approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180.
40
Thompson, J.K., Heinberg, L.J., Altabe, M., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (1999). Exacting beauty:
Theory, assessment, and treatment of body image disturbance. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10312-000
Thompson, E. H., Jr., & Pleck, J. H. (1995). Masculinity ideologies: A review of research instrumentation on men and masculinities. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A
new psychology of men (pp. 129-163). New York, NY, US: Basic Books.
Thompson, J. K., van den Berg, P., Roehrig, M., Guarda, A. S., & Heinberg, L. J. (2004). The sociocultural attitudes towards appearance scale-3 (SATAQ-3): Development and validation. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 35(3), 293–304.
doi:10.1002/eat.10257
Tiggemann, M. (2012). Sociocultural Perspectives on Body Image. In T.M. Cash (Ed.)
Encyclopedia of Body Image and Human Appearance Vol. 2 (pp. 758-765). London:
Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978- 0-12-384925-0.00120-6
Tiggemann, M., & Lynch, J. E. (2001). Body image across the life span in adult women: The role of self-objectification. Developmental Psychology, 37(2), 243–253.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.37.2.243
Tiggemann, M., & McGill, B. (2004). The role of social comparison in the effect of magazine advertisements on women's mood and body dissatisfaction. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 23(1), 23-44. doi:10.1521/jscp.23.1.23.26991
Tiggemann, M., & Zaccardo, M. (2018). “Strong is the new skinny”: A content analysis of #fitspiration images on Instagram. Journal of Health Psychology, 23(8), 1003–1011. doi:10.1177/1359105316639436
41
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1–10. doi:10.1007/bf02291170
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013). The differential susceptibility to media effects model.
Journal of Communication, 63(2), 221–243. doi:10.1111/jcom.12024.
Van den Eijnden, R. J. J. M., Lemmens, J. S., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2016). The Social Media Disorder Scale. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 478–487.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.038
Van Oosten, J. M. F., Vandenbosch, L., & Peter, J. (2017). Gender roles on social networking sites: investigating reciprocal relationships between Dutch adolescents’
hypermasculinity and hyperfemininity and sexy online self-presentations. Journal of
Children and Media, 11(2), 147–166. doi:10.1080/17482798.2017.1304970
Vandenbosch, L., Vervloessem, D., & Eggermont, S. (2013). “I Might Get Your Heart Racing in My Skin-Tight Jeans”: Sexualization on Music Entertainment Television.
Communication Studies, 64(2), 178–194. doi:10.1080/10510974.2012.755640
Verplanken, B., Hofstee, G., & Janssen, H. J. (1998). Accessibility of affective versus cognitive components of attitudes. European journal of social psychology, 28(1), 23-35. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0992(199801/02)28:1<23::aid-ejsp843>3.3.co;2-q
Warren, C. S., & Rios, R. M. (2013). The relationships among acculturation, acculturative stress, endorsement of Western media, social comparison, and body image in Hispanic male college students. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(2), 192–201.
42
Wienke, C. (1998). Negotiating the male body: Men, masculinity, and cultural ideals. The
Journal of Men’s Studies, 6(3), 255-282. doi:10.1177/106082659800600301
Yelland, C., & Tiggemann, M. (2003). Muscularity and the gay ideal: body dissatisfaction and disordered eating in homosexual men. Eating Behaviors, 4(2), 107–116.
43
Appendix A: New and Adjusted Questionnaires Demographics
Frequency of daily Instagram use never
less than once a day 1-2 times
3-5 times 6-10 times 11-20 times 21-40 times
