Elsevier

Body Image

Volume 6, Issue 3, June 2009, Pages 201-206
Body Image

Upward and downward physical appearance comparisons: Development of scales and examination of predictive qualities

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.03.003Get rights and content

Abstract

Despite good theoretical and empirical rationale for assessing tendencies to make upward and downward physical appearance comparisons no measure for these specific constructs exists. The present work developed and tested the psychometric properties of upward and downward physical appearance comparison scales. The scales were administered to participants (N = 224) along with measures of general appearance comparison tendencies, body image, disordered eating, Antifat and Antigay attitudes. The scales displayed good psychometric properties. Importantly, the upward but not downward physical appearance comparison scale predicted lower Appearance Evaluation and higher EAT-26 scores. Conversely, the downward but not upward physical appearance comparison scale predicted higher Appearance Evaluation and greater Antifat Attitudes (Dislike). The scales were unrelated to a nonappearance related construct. These new measures fill a gap in the literature and may be of benefit to researchers interested in body image, appearance concerns, eating disorders, social comparison, and obesity prejudice.

Introduction

Judging one's worth in the world through social comparisons is central not only to human psychological functioning, but also critical to the survival of individual animals in many species (Gilbert, Price, & Allan, 1995). Festinger (1954) original conceptualisation of social comparison theory holds that people have an innate drive to evaluate dimensions (e.g., abilities, attitudes, status) of the self. Where objective means for evaluation are not available people will seek to make comparisons against similar others. Research in the intervening half century has seen Festinger (1954) theory evolve considerably with theorists now accepting that social comparisons fulfill needs beyond mere self-evaluation, with self-improvement and self-enhancement also considered to be core motives (Buunk and Gibbons, 2007, Wood, 1989, Wood, 1996). Similarly, people do not always seek similar others as targets for comparison, frequently making upward (Wheeler, 1966) or downward comparisons (Wills, 1981) with varying degrees of preference against superior or inferior targets, respectively (Gibbons and Buunk, 1999, Heinberg and Thompson, 1992).

Although the motives for, and consequences of, upward and downward comparisons vary greatly across study populations, domains of comparison, and contexts (Wheeler and Miyake, 1992, Wills, 1981, Wood, 1989), research on physical appearance comparisons has produced rather consistent findings. Research in this field shows that people with a strong tendency to make physical appearance comparisons experience greater body dissatisfaction and disordered eating behaviours (Cattarin et al., 2000, Durkin and Paxton, 2002, Fisher et al., 2002, Heinberg and Thompson, 1992, Thompson et al., 1991). More specifically, the tendency to make general physical appearance comparisons mediates or moderates the relationship between sociocultural influences (e.g., idealized media images, importance of appearance), body dissatisfaction, and disordered eating (Keery et al., 2004, Thompson et al., 1999). The underlying assumption for much of this research is that people tend to make upward physical appearance comparisons rather than downward ones. That is, people tend to make physical appearance comparisons with more attractive targets (e.g., fashion models, T.V./movie stars), and that these comparisons result in dissatisfaction with the self and adoption of risky compensatory behaviours (e.g., disordered eating, tanning, cosmetic surgery: Groesz et al., 2002, Thompson et al., 1999). Other research suggests that context makes an important contribution to choice of comparison target, with manipulations of the salience of cultural norms for appearance dictating whether peers or models are perceived as relevant targets for comparison (Strahan, Wilson, Cressman, & Buote, 2006). Although a handful of attempts have been made to examine individual differences in the frequency with which upward physical appearance comparisons are made, these processes are typically only inferred by researchers rather than measured.

In contrast to upward comparisons, downward comparison theory (Wills, 1981) predicts that people experiencing negative feelings or cognitions about themselves (e.g., low physical self-esteem) can, and often do, enhance their self-regard by comparing themselves to people they perceive to be less valued or worse off than themselves. In this way, comparing one's physical appearance to, and holding negative attitudes toward, perceived lesser others (e.g., obese individuals), may enhance self-esteem, body satisfaction, and psychological functioning (Crocker and Gallo, 1985, Duckitt, 1992, Major et al., 1991, Wills, 1981). However, other researchers suggest that even those with high self-esteem compare themselves to perceived downward targets (Wheeler and Miyake, 1992, Wood et al., 2000). Logically, comparing one's physical appearance with those perceived to be physically inferior or less attractive should result in more positive feelings about the physical self (i.e., body image/esteem) regardless of the starting point of one's current self-evaluation. In support of this argument, recent research found that the tendency to make physical appearance comparisons mediated the positive relationship between body image and Antifat Attitudes (O’Brien, Hunter, Halberstadt, & Anderson, 2007). Although we suspect that the comparison processes activated were downward, given that overweight and obese people are perceived as less and/or unattractive, the direction of comparison could not be determined as the comparison measure used only assessed the tendency to make physical appearance comparisons generally, and not the tendency to make downward appearance comparisons specifically. It may be that those with a greater tendency to make downward appearance comparisons consistently seek out targets perceived to be less attractive than themselves (e.g., obese people), which in turn facilitates a more positive view of one's own physical appearance (a self-enhancement comparison motive).

In a similar vein, two recent meta-analyses (Grabe et al., 2008, Groesz et al., 2002) revealed only small to moderate effect sizes for the impact of media images (via theorized comparison processes) on body dissatisfaction and eating behaviours. Indeed, while the majority of the studies included in Groesz et al.’s (2002) meta-analysis were in the predicted direction (exposure to thin or idealized images leading to reduced body satisfaction), 12 of the 43 effect sizes were effectively either zero (d = −0.01 to −0.10) or in the opposite direction (exposure lead to increased body satisfaction). Grabe et al. (2008) noted a similar pattern. Additionally, an earlier review (Levine & Smolak, 1998) highlighted that research on the impact of exposure to thin media images was at best mixed. Importantly, all three reviews, along with others (e.g., Fisher et al., 2002, Tiggemann and McGill, 2004), highlight that the mixed findings in this area may be attributable to differences in the tendency to make physical appearance comparisons. We agree but go further in suggesting that individual differences in the tendency to make upward and downward physical appearance comparisons specifically may be central to understanding the impact of sociocultural influences (e.g., idealized media images) on body dissatisfaction and disordered eating. The mere presentation of idealized images does not guarantee the initiation of comparison processes (particularly upward), nor does it ensure an equivalent level of investment by participants in conducting potential comparisons. Studies attempting to address this flaw by instructing participants to actively make upward or downward physical appearance comparisons (e.g., Tiggemann & McGill, 2004) suffer from issues of real world validity. Thus, an alternative measurement approach is needed to improve our understanding of the role of physical appearance comparisons in body dissatisfaction and associated consequences.

Assessing differences in the tendency or preference to make upward or downward physical appearance comparisons specifically is theoretically and empirically important. While there are existing measures of the tendency to make general physical appearance comparisons, there are no measures for assessing individual tendencies to make upward or downward physical appearance comparisons specifically. In this paper we describe the development and psychometric properties of two new measures designed to assess individual tendencies toward making upward and downward physical appearance comparisons. Based on previous research and theory (e.g., Thompson et al., 1999, Wheeler, 1966), we expect that the tendency to make upward, but not downward physical appearance comparisons will predict lower Appearance Evaluation (body image) and higher disordered eating behaviours. Conversely, and consistent with previous research (O’Brien et al., 2007) and theory (Duckitt, 1992, Wills, 1981), we expect downward but not upward physical appearance comparisons to predict derogation of a target group perceived as less physically attractive (i.e., obese people).

Section snippets

Participants

Two hundred and twenty-four first year university students (60% female) from an Australian university participated in the study. Mean age and standard deviation (SD) of the sample was 19.97, SD = 3.87 (range 18–49 years), with mean BMI = 22.72, SD = 3.98 kg/m2, range 16.0–41.4 kg/m2). According to BMI classifications calculated from self-reported weight and height, 7.2% of the sample were underweight (BMI < 18.5); 75.9% were normal weight (BMI = 18.5–24.9); 11.1% were overweight (BMI = 25–29.9) and 5.6% were

Preliminary analysis

One-way ANOVAs were conducted to assess gender differences. Consistent with the existing literature, males had lower scores than females on the PACS (M = 14.13, SD = 3.01 vs. M = 15.11, SD = 3.18, F(1, 214) = 5.15, p < .05), BCS weight subscale (M = 11.62, SD = 4.65 vs. M = 14.88, SD = 5.30, F(1, 214) = 21.37, p < .001), EAT-26 total (M = 6.20, SD = 7.19 vs. M = 9.14, SD = 8.75, F(1, 213) = 6.67, p < .05). Conversely, males reported higher Appearance Evaluation (M = 3.36, SD = 0.62 vs. M = 3.17, SD = 0.69, F(1, 216) = 4.32, p < .05), Antifat

Discussion

The results show that the UPACS and DACS have good internal consistency and construct validity, with both the UPACS and DACS associated with other measures of physical appearance comparisons. Further, the scales accounted for variance in body image and disordered eating behaviour scores over and above that of existing measures. The scales were not associated with a nonappearance construct, nor were they related to BMI or age. Consistent with other measures in the field, males had significantly

References (35)

  • L.A. Clark et al.

    Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development

    Psychological Assessment

    (1995)
  • C.S. Crandall

    Prejudice against fat people: Ideology and self-interest

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1994)
  • Crocker, J., & Gallo, L. (1985, August). The self-enhancing effect of downward comparison. Paper presented at the...
  • J. Duckitt

    The Social psychology of prejudice

    (1992)
  • L. Festinger

    A theory of social comparison processes

    Human Relations

    (1954)
  • E. Fisher et al.

    Social comparison and body image: An investigation of body comparison processes using multidimensional scaling

    Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology

    (2002)
  • D.M. Garner et al.

    The Eating Attitudes Test: Psychometric features and clinical correlates

    Psychological Medicine

    (1982)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text