The drive for muscularity in men: Media influences and ...

Viewer
Transcript

Body Image 7 (2010) 32–38

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Body Image journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bodyimage

The drive for muscularity in men: Media inﬂuences and objectiﬁcation theory Samantha Daniel, Sara K. Bridges * The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Received 20 February 2009 Received in revised form 24 August 2009 Accepted 28 August 2009

Presently, objectiﬁcation theory has yielded mixed results when utilized to explain body image concerns in men. An online survey assessing internalization of media ideals, self-objectiﬁcation, body surveillance, body shame, the drive for muscularity, and body mass index (BMI) was completed by 244 predominantly college-aged males. Path analyses were used to investigate relationships among these variables where it was hypothesized that objectiﬁcation variables would mediate the relationship between internalization of media ideals and the drive for muscularity. Internalization of media ideals was the strongest predictor of the drive for muscularity, followed by BMI, though variables of objectiﬁcation theory had no impact on the drive for muscularity contrary to hypotheses. The results suggest that objectiﬁcation theory may not be applicable to men as it is currently measured. ß 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Objectiﬁcation theory Body image Media inﬂuences Internalization of media ideals Male body image Drive for muscularity

Introduction Historically, the literature addressing body image concerns has focused primarily on the female experience of this phenomenon (see Grabe, Ward, & Hyde, 2008 for a meta-analysis), with little if any focus on men. Many reasons exist for this disparity (e.g., prevalence rates of eating disorders, gender role theories, emphasis placed on female attractiveness in media); however the main reason involves the belief that males are at little or no risk of having problems related to their body image (McCabe & Ricciardelli, 2004; Schooler & Ward, 2006). Researchers have since rejected this notion and are striving to deﬁne, measure, and develop theories that capture the male experience of body image and explain the recent increase in male body image disturbances. Broadly deﬁned, a body image disturbance involves a negative disturbance in the attitudes, behaviors and/or perceptions one holds about his or her body. As with any disturbance, body image disturbances can range from mild to severe, with milder forms most commonly reported and designated in this paper as ‘‘body image concerns.’’ Such concerns form the basis of subclinical eating disorders. For many, body image concerns can lead to engagement in behaviors intended to modify one’s appearance and/or to the perceptual distortion of one’s features of his or her body (Cafri & Thompson, 2004; Monteath & McCabe, 1997). A key component to understanding body image concerns in men, then, involves further deﬁning body image ideals for men. Qualitative studies have

* Corresponding author at: 100 Ball Hall, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, 38152, United States. Tel.: +1 901 678 2081. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.K. Bridges). 1740-1445/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.08.003

proven useful in capturing the construct of male body image as related to the drive for muscularity (e.g., Adams, Turner, & Bucks, 2005; Bottamini & Ste-Marie, 2006; De Souza & Ciclitira, 2005; Labre, 2005; Ridgeway & Tylka, 2005), laying the foundation for the creation of assessments to measure this experience. In a review of the current instruments available for assessing body image in men, Cafri and Thompson (2004) regarded the Drive for Muscularity Scale (McCreary & Sasse, 2000) as the best instrument available. The DMS measures one’s drive towards increased muscular physique, which is clearly one of the most important aspects of male body image (McCreary & Sasse, 2000). Since discovering the importance of muscularity to male body image, researchers have begun to explore potential theories to explain the increase in the drive for muscularity among men in recent years as such an increase can lead to the development of body image disturbances in men (McCreary & Sadava, 2001; Schooler & Ward, 2006). One possible way to explain the increase in the drive for muscularity is the concept of objectiﬁcation. Frederickson and Roberts’ (1997) objectiﬁcation theory has been successfully applied to female body image concerns, linking internalization of media standards, sexual objectiﬁcation, and self-objectiﬁcation to body image concerns and eating disorder symptomology (Calogero, Davis, & Thompson, 2005; Frederickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, & Twenge, 1998; Moradi, Dirks, & Matteson, 2005). Additional research has proposed similar links with men using the sociocultural theory of media exposure and social comparison theory to investigate male body image concerns, ﬁnding that media exposure to male body ideals as well as comparison of oneself to these ideals were positively correlated with the drive for muscularity in men (Leit, Gray, & Pope, 2002; Morrison, Morrison, & Hopkins, 2003). Strelan and Hargreaves (2005) applied

S. Daniel, S.K. Bridges / Body Image 7 (2010) 32–38

objectiﬁcation theory to men and women in an attempt to understand motivation for exercise and body esteem. They found that self-objectiﬁcation and reasons for exercise related to the modiﬁcation of appearance were negatively correlated to body esteem in both genders. Moreover, researchers have found moderate support for objectiﬁcation theory in disordered eating (Calogero, 2009) and depressed mood (Tiggemann & Kuring, 2004) in men and women. Further, Hebl, King, and Lin (2004) found that men and women of every ethnicity experienced negative outcomes when put in objectifying situations. These ﬁndings provide preliminary evidence that objectiﬁcation theory is applicable in explaining male body image concerns yet virtually no studies to our knowledge have incorporated media inﬂuences into objectiﬁcation models with men despite the fact that the relationship is implied. Since men do not typically experience sexual objectiﬁcation to the same extent as women on a personal level, their sexual objectiﬁcation in the media, rather, may lead them to engage in self-objectiﬁcation and body surveillance (Aubrey, 2006). Also, the studies mentioned previously do not utilize the Drive for Muscularity Scale (McCreary & Sasse, 2000) in assessing male body image concerns as recommended by leading theorists since they typically employ measures centered around adiposity rather than muscularity. Therefore, this study sought to further explore objectiﬁcation theory with men by combining internalization of media inﬂuences, self-objectiﬁcation, body surveillance, body shame, and the drive for muscularity in a path model similar to models used to explain body image concerns in women. Speciﬁcally, the relationship between internalization of media ideals and the drive for muscularity is hypothesized to be mediated by components of objectiﬁcation theory (i.e., self-objectiﬁcation, body surveillance, and body shame). These relationships were tested in this study. Internalization of media ideals Research concerning female body image has implicated the role of the media in deﬁning and perpetuating feminine ideals (Grabe et al., 2008); the same is true for men. The media representation of ideal male and female bodies has become increasingly more restrictive to certain body types over time (Boroughs, Cafri, & Thompson, 2005; Schooler & Ward, 2006). This trend is exempliﬁed in men by examining the changing male portrayals in Play Girl centerfolds and male action ﬁgures (Frith & Gleeson, 2004; Grieve, Newton, Kelley, Miller, & Kerr, 2005; Leit, Pope, & Gray, 2001; Lorenzen, Grieve, & Thomas, 2004; Morrison et al., 2003; Ridgeway & Tylka, 2005; Schooler & Ward, 2006). The muscularity of such representations has increased from the 1970s to 1990s (Labre, 2005). These portrayals present an extremely, and largely unattainable, muscular ideal male body type (Lever, Frederick, & Peplau, 2006; Schooler & Ward, 2006), which is equivalent to the unattainable thin female ideal perpetuated by Barbie dolls (Olivardia, Pope, Borowiecki, & Cohane, 2004). Just as with women, men may internalize these ideals by setting them as personal goals and experience body image concerns in result of their inability to meet the ideals and also through social comparisons of themselves to others (Arbour & Martin Ginis, 2006; Lorenzen et al., 2004; Morrison et al., 2003). A meta-analysis of the effects of the media on male body image concerns yielded similar effect sizes as found with women (Grabe et al., 2008) for correlational and experimental studies (ds = 0.19 and 0.22 respectively) across 25 studies (Bartlett, Vowels, & Saucier, 2008). Further, Aubrey (2006) found that exposure to sexually objectifying television and magazines increased body surveillance in men though not women in a 2-year panel study. Given that internalization of media ideals has been found to be a strong predictor of body image concerns in men, the addition of objectiﬁcation theory may enhance the understanding

33

of this relationship given that most people are similarly exposed to the body ideals and sexually objectifying images perpetuated in the media. Objectiﬁcation theory Frederickson and Roberts (1997) used Bartky’s (1990) deﬁnition of sexual objectiﬁcation (i.e., the separation of one’s bodies, body parts, or sexual functions from one’s identity, which reduces him/her to the status of an object) to develop objectiﬁcation theory. Objectiﬁcation theory contends that Western culture socializes girls and women to view themselves as objects to be evaluated speciﬁcally on the basis of appearance rather than their personhood due to the constant subjection of their bodies to other people’s (speciﬁcally men’s) leering gazes and evaluations (Frederickson et al., 1998). Westernized culture socializes girls and women to internalize these gazes and evaluations of their bodies reducing them to objects, resulting in their increased preoccupation with their own physical appearance termed selfobjectiﬁcation. Consequences associated with self-objectiﬁcation according to research are increased self-consciousness and monitoring of one’s appearance, body shame, and eating disorder symptoms such as body dissatisfaction, low self-esteem and body esteem, depressed mood, and restrictive and disordered eating patterns (Calogero et al., 2005; Frederickson et al., 1998; McKinley, 1999; Moradi et al., 2005; Tiggemann & Kuring, 2004; Tiggemann & Lynch, 2001). Body surveillance, an integral component of objectiﬁcation theory, is the experience of viewing one’s body from the perspective of an outside observer (McKinley & Hyde, 1996). People who engage in high levels of body surveillance may constantly monitor their appearance and think of their bodies in terms of how they look rather than how their bodies feel or what they can do, resulting in increased self-objectiﬁcation. Further, body shame results from discrepancies observed when comparing one’s body to the ideal bodies highly regarded by one’s culture. Together, self-objectiﬁcation, body surveillance, and body shame comprise the triad of objectiﬁcation theory. Despite the fact that objectiﬁcation theory was developed to explain female body image concerns, other researchers argue its applicability to male body image concerns as well (Hebl et al., 2004; Martins, Tiggemann, & Kirkbride, 2007; Morrison et al., 2003; Morry & Staska, 2001; Strelan & Hargreaves, 2005; Tiggemann & Kuring, 2004). Although men may not necessarily experience evaluation by women to the same degree that women experience evaluation by men, men are subjected to the same overarching cultural system and ideals perpetuated by the media that prove to be important in the literature concerning objectiﬁcation and body image concerns for both genders (Frederickson et al., 1998; Morrison et al., 2003; Strelan & Hargreaves, 2005). Moreover, the increase in the sexual objectiﬁcation of men in media images is documented (Rolhinger, 2002) and found to be related to body dissatisfaction in men (Arbour & Martin Ginis, 2006). Since men are similarly bombarded by body type ideals and sexually objectiﬁed images in the media, they are also likely to adopt the ideal body perpetuated by society as the only type of body to be valued, feel sexually objectiﬁed, and disregard their personhood, which would result in self-objectiﬁcation as found with women. Strelan and Hargreaves (2005) explored the role of self-objectiﬁcation on men’s body esteem, self-esteem and motivation for exercise. Further, Tiggemann and Kuring (2004) and Calogero (2009) used objectiﬁcation theory to explain disordered eating in both genders, ﬁnding moderate support for its utility in men. The current study builds upon the previous three by adding internalization of media ideals and the drive for muscularity in a path model to examine the utility of objectiﬁcation theory as an explanatory framework in understanding body image concerns in men.

34

S. Daniel, S.K. Bridges / Body Image 7 (2010) 32–38

Male body image Research has indicated that the ideal male body has become increasingly more restrictive over the past few decades, which has resulted in the intensiﬁcation of male body image investment (Cafri & Thompson, 2004; Morrison et al., 2003). The recent increase in anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) use in boys and men can be equated with the rate of anorexia and bulimia in girls and women, and some would argue is greater (McCreary & Sadava, 2001; Schooler & Ward, 2006). Large scale surveys concluded that male body image concerns have dramatically increased over the past three decades from 15% to 43% of men being dissatisﬁed with their bodies; rates that are comparable to those found in women (Garner, 1997; Goldﬁeld, Blouin, & Woodside, 2006; Schooler & Ward, 2006). In adolescent and college samples, between 28% and 68% of normal-weight males perceive themselves as underweight and report a desire to increase their muscle mass through dieting and strength training (McCabe & Ricciardelli, 2004; McCreary & Sadava, 2001). Authors of another study with a male college sample found that approximately 84% of participants expressed body dissatisfaction on some level, compared to 69% of their adult counterparts being dissatisﬁed with their bodies (Lynch & Zellner, 1999). This evidence supports the notion that men are becoming increasingly more concerned with their physical appearance, albeit still to a lesser extent than women (Weltzin, Weisensel, Franczyk, Burnett, Klitz, & Bean, 2005). In summary, the present study seeks to examine and extend our knowledge of male body image concerns by further testing the applicability of objectiﬁcation theory to men, taking into account internalization of media standards and its effects on male body image in terms of the male drive for muscularity. We hypothesized (see Fig. 1) positive relationships between internalization of media ideals, self-objectiﬁcation, body surveillance, body shame, and the drive for muscularity. More speciﬁcally, we hypothesized that the components of objectiﬁcation theory would mediate the relationship between internalization of media ideals and the drive for muscularity. Further, body mass index was used as a control variable consistent with prior research given its known inﬂuence on body image variables and limited inﬂuence on internalization of media ideals and objectiﬁcation. Method Participants and procedure Male college students at two southern universities in the United States were asked to complete an online survey via email solicitation and snowball sampling procedures after obtaining

permission from the Institutional Review Boards of both universities. Participants voluntarily responded to a questionnaire that assessed media inﬂuences, objectiﬁcation theory, and body image. All responses were aggregated protecting the identity of participants. The mean age of the sample (N = 244) was 21.35, (SD = 3.81), and the majority of participants were Caucasian (87.3%) and heterosexual (85.7%). In terms of college classiﬁcation, 22.1% were freshman, 19.7% were sophomores, 18.4% were juniors, 24.2% were seniors, 5.7% were graduate students, and 9.8% did not reveal their classiﬁcation. Measures Demographic Questionnaire. This questionnaire asked for participant information regarding age, gender, sexual orientation, media exposure, height and weight to compute their body mass index (BMI; National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 2007), and exercise habits. Sociocultural Attitudes Toward Appearance Questionnaire. The Sociocultural Attitudes Toward Appearance Questionnaire (SATAQ) is a 14-item instrument scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree; 5 = completely agree) developed by Heinberg, Thompson, and Stormer (1995) to measure the degree to which an individual recognizes, accepts, and internalizes sociocultural appearance standards. Factor analysis yielded two factors of internalization and awareness that comprise the subscales of this instrument (Heinberg et al., 1995). The wording of items was amended for use with men. For the purpose of this study, the internalization subscale was used, with a reliability of .87. Internalization scores were generated by summing responses on the eight items where total scores ranged from 8 to 40. Higher scores indicated increased internalization. Self-Objectiﬁcation Questionnaire. The Self-Objectiﬁcation Questionnaire developed by Noll and Fredrickson (1998) assesses the extent to which participants view their body as an object of observation based on its appearance versus viewing their body in competency based, non-observable terms. It is a 10-item measure with 5 appearance based attributes (e.g., sex appeal, measurements, weight, etc.) and 5 competency based attributes (e.g., health, strength, physical coordination, etc.) where participants are asked to rank each attribute from 1 as most important to 10 as least important in its relative impact on their physical self concept. Scores range from 25 to 25 and represent the difference between one’s appearance and competence ratings where higher scores represent greater self-objectiﬁcation. Objectiﬁed Body Consciousness Scale. The Objectiﬁed Body Consciousness Scale (OBCS; McKinley & Hyde, 1996) was developed to assess three aspects of objectiﬁed body consciousness

Fig. 1. Hypothesized model of the drive for muscularity.

S. Daniel, S.K. Bridges / Body Image 7 (2010) 32–38

including body surveillance, body shame, and beliefs about body control. Each subscale has 8-items and is scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Though developed for women, reliability studies indicate internal consistency measures range from .64 to .79 in college men (McKinley, 1998). For the purposes of this study, the Body Surveillance subscale was used to measure the extent to which one experiences viewing one’s body as an outside observer and the Body Shame subscale was used to measure the shame one experiences when one’s body does not conform to cultural standards. Cronbach as for these subscales were .79 and .72, respectively, where subscale scores were derived by averaging responses across all items. Drive for Muscularity Scale. The Drive for Muscularity Scale (DMS) is a 15-item instrument scored on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree) developed to measure attitudes and behaviors related to satisfaction with one’s muscular appearance (McCreary & Sasse, 2000). The instrument contains two subscales to assess two dimensions of the drive for muscularity, including attitudes and behaviors. Subscale and total scores can be derived by either averaging or summing the item responses. McCreary, Sasse, Saucier, and Dorsch (2004) concluded that the DMS has acceptable degrees of construct, and convergent and discriminant validity from the results of their analyses. In the present study, the total DMS score was used (a = .89). Scores were summed across the 15 items, where higher scores indicated greater drive for muscularity.

35

Table 1 Correlations, means, and standard deviations (N = 244). 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

BMI Internalization Objectiﬁcation Surveillance Shame DMS

Means Standard deviations * **

2 – .03 .07 .02 .17** .14*

25.24 5.00

3 – .39** .56** .19** .58**

22.52 7.00

4

– .51** .12 .25** 7.75 11.59

5

6

– .32** .26** 4.06 1.01

– .08

–

2.74 0.95

41.89 14.75

p < .05. p < .01.

Table 2 bs values (partial regression coefﬁcients) for pathways in model. Model 1 IN-SO IN-SU IN-BS IN-DM SO-SU SO-BS SO-DM SU-BS SU-DM BS-DM BMI-DM

.39*** .42*** .03 .62*** .34*** .07 .06 .34*** .13 .02 .15**

Model 2 – .56*** .02 .63*** – – – .31*** .10 .02 .16**

Note: IN, Internalization of Media Ideals; SO, Self-Objectiﬁcation; SU, Body Surveillance; BS, Body Shame; BMI, body mass index; DM, Drive for Muscularity. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Results Preliminary analyses were conducted to test the assumptions underlying the general linear model, multicollinearity, and potential outliers. Results revealed that the assumption of homoscedasticity was violated, although this does not pose a problem considering regression-based analyses are generally robust to such a violation (Bohrnstedt & Carter, 1971; Ezekiel & Fox, 1959; Pedhazur, 1982). No problems with multicollinearity were observed. Lastly, no inﬂuential data points were identiﬁed; therefore no cases were eliminated from the ﬁnal analyses. A path analysis using GEMINI, a FORTRAN program that computes indirect effects and their standard errors in addition to standard regression results developed by Wolﬂe & Ethington (as cited in Ethington, 1990) following a standard path analysis procedure for manifest variables, was conducted to test the hypothesized relationships between the variables. Such an

analysis provides a more precise test of mediation by testing all direct and indirect relationships simultaneously. According to the conceptualized model, the sequence of objectiﬁcation variables (self-objectiﬁcation, body surveillance, and body shame) was hypothesized to mediate the relationship between internalization of media ideals and the drive for muscularity. Correlations, means, and standard deviations used in this study are provided in Table 1. The resulting bs for all paths are reported in Table 2. The overall ﬁt of the model was moderate, with R = .604, R2 = .364, F(5, 238) = 27.30, p < .001. Internalization of media ideals had signiﬁcant direct effects on self-objectiﬁcation (b = .39, p < .001), body surveillance (b = .42, p < .001), and the drive for muscularity (b = .62, p < .001). Body surveillance mediated the relationship

Fig. 2. Observed path model of the drive for muscularity with self-objectiﬁcation (Model 1).

36

S. Daniel, S.K. Bridges / Body Image 7 (2010) 32–38

Fig. 3. Observed path model of the drive for muscularity without self-objectiﬁcation (Model 2).

between self-objectiﬁcation and body shame, though the direction of the effect of self-objectiﬁcation on body surveillance was in the opposite direction than hypothesized. The relationship between body shame and the drive for muscularity was nonsigniﬁcant. BMI exhibited a signiﬁcant effect on the drive for muscularity (b = .15, p < .01). The resulting path model is presented as Model 1 in Fig. 2. Given the observed negative relationships contrary to hypotheses between internalization of media ideals and self-objectiﬁcation and self-objectiﬁcation and body surveillance, a subsequent path analysis was conducted excluding self-objectiﬁcation. The overall ﬁt of the model again was moderate, with R = .602, R2 = .362, F(4, 239) = 33.89, p < .001. Body surveillance mediated the relationship between internalization of media ideals and body shame as predicted. Contrary to hypotheses, internalization of media ideals retained its signiﬁcant direct relationship to the drive for muscularity (b = .63, p < .001) and body shame had no direct effect on the drive for muscularity. BMI was signiﬁcantly related to the drive for muscularity (b = .16, p < .01), The resulting path model is presented as Model 2 in Fig. 3. Discussion This study further examined the role of media inﬂuences and objectiﬁcation theory to male body image concerns. Prior research using causal models to explain female body image concerns has implicated the mediating role of objectiﬁcation in this phenomenon (Calogero et al., 2005; Moradi et al., 2005). Few researchers have attempted to explain male body image concerns in this way whereas others researchers regard objectiﬁcation to be primarily a female phenomenon (Frederickson et al., 1998). Strelan and Hargreaves (2005) provided preliminary evidence for the support of self-objectiﬁcation in body esteem and reasons for exercise in men and women, but they did not include a measure of internalization of media ideals nor did they use the recommended instrument to assess male body image concerns (DMS; Drive for Muscularity Scale) as suggested in Cafri and Thompson’s (2004) review. Similarly, Tiggemann and Kuring (2004) and Calogero (2009) found moderate support for objectiﬁcation theory in explaining disordered eating in men, but they used measures concerning adiposity in their analyses rather than using the DMS. In the present study, path models were used to examine if variables of objectiﬁcation theory mediated the relationship between internalization of media ideals and the drive for muscularity in men. Results from the present study indicate that

the strongest predictors of the drive for muscularity are internalization of media ideals and body mass index (BMI). Body surveillance mediated the relationship between internalization of media ideals and body shame. Variables of objectiﬁcation theory had no relationship to the drive for muscularity in this sample. Therefore, the results still vary about the role of objectiﬁcation theory in the male experience of body image concerns in light of the results of the present study, however there are some possible explanations for our ﬁndings. The instrument used to measure self-objectiﬁcation in this study could be a possible source of the unexpected results. The Self-Objectiﬁcation Questionnaire (SOQ; Noll & Fredrickson, 1998) was derived for use with women and utilizes ranks and score conversions to calculate a self-objectiﬁcation score for each participant. As such, its use as a reliable and valid measure for men is questionable at best given the scarcity of research addressing its measurement properties in this population. Further, when used with both genders, different researchers have generated different conclusions regarding its applicability to men. The negative relationship observed in this study between self-objectiﬁcation and body surveillance is also troubling given that these constructs are theoretically considered to be related, especially since other researchers have found a positive relationship between these constructs (Calogero, 2009; Tiggemann & Kuring, 2004). It is also peculiar that some researchers observed a negative relationship between self-objectiﬁcation and body shame, though this was not found in the present study (Calogero, 2009; Tiggemann & Kuring, 2004). Further, the negative relationship observed between self-objectiﬁcation and internalization of media ideals makes little sense theoretically given that the inﬂuence of Westernized culture on individuals forms the basis of objectiﬁcation theory. This is particularly evident given the observed, positive mediating role of body surveillance between internalization of media ideals and body shame consistent with objectiﬁcation theory. Measurement-wise, however, the conﬂicting results across studies and contrary to objectiﬁcation theory make sense. Similar to other researchers (Calogero, 2009; Tiggemann & Kuring, 2004) we believe that the competency based items on the SOQ are related to the drive for muscularity in men (e.g., strength, physical ﬁtness level, and energy level), whereas the appearance based items (e.g., sex appeal, physical attractiveness, and weight – which, when rated as more important, result in higher self-objectiﬁcation scores) are more related to the self-objectiﬁcation experiences of

S. Daniel, S.K. Bridges / Body Image 7 (2010) 32–38

women. Thus, it is possible that men self-objectify when they place more value on the traits associated with the drive for muscularity (e.g., competency based traits that result in lower selfobjectiﬁcation scores) as well as those solely focused on appearance, making the measurement of self-objectiﬁcation in men using the appearance and competency based continuums as intended in the SOQ less reliable and valid across studies. These ﬁndings highlight a possible measurement issue that should be further explored by the creation of an instrument assessing selfobjectiﬁcation in men. Such an instrument must take in consideration the drive for muscularity in men as opposed to the drive of thinness in women, though still maintain the distinction between being overly focused on body presentation than body competencies resulting in self-objectiﬁcation. Internalization, however, was shown as having the most importance on the drive for muscularity consistent with research concerning body image concerns in men and women (Arbour & Martin Ginis, 2006; Calogero et al., 2005; Leit et al., 2002; Lorenzen et al., 2004; McCabe & Ricciardelli, 2004; Moradi et al., 2005; Morrison et al., 2003) where increased levels of internalization of media ideals results in increased body image concerns. Though body surveillance mediated the relationship between internalization of media ideals and body shame, the role of objectiﬁcation theory as a mediator of media inﬂuences on the drive for muscularity was not supported. As such, any models examining body image concerns should take into account the importance of internalization of media ideals and focus on understanding objectiﬁcation from the male perspective. In the presence of the other variables, BMI retained its signiﬁcance as a predictor of the drive for muscularity where those with a lower BMI desired to become more muscular. In terms of relative importance, however, internalization exhibited a greater inﬂuence on the drive for muscularity. Further, the nature of the relationship between BMI and the drive for muscularity has not been extensively studied. It could be that the relationship between BMI and the drive for muscularity is curvilinear. Future studies should retain BMI as a variable, but should seek to identify other variables that also contribute to the drive for muscularity as well as clarifying the relationship between BMI and the drive for muscularity. For example, studies with women have demonstrated the importance of peer relationships, parental relationships, and self-criticism in body image concerns (Dunkley & Grilo, 2007; Ringer & Crittenden, 2007; Schutz & Paxton, 2007). Further research with men may implicate similar factors on their drive for muscularity. Understanding these factors can assist in developing and informing treatment of men with body image concerns that may lead to body image disturbances. A major limitation to this study was the lack of diversity in the sample. The sample was 85% heterosexual Caucasians. Future studies may seek to examine the applicability of the model to men of different ethnicities, sexual orientations, and men of wider range of ages. In addition, future studies may seek to identify if collegiate athletic team membership moderates the observed effects in this model considering that prior research as focused on the drive for muscularity in athletes (Goldﬁeld et al., 2006; Hildebrandt, Schlundt, Langenbucher, & Chung, 2006; Kanayama, Barry, Hudson, & Pope, 2006; Pope, Olivardia, Gruber, & Borowiecki, 2006). Insufﬁcient sample size restricted the capability of examining athletes separately in the present study. Another limitation lies in the validity of the SOQ. Again, future studies may seek to elucidate this construct as it applies to men and derive alternative ways of measurement. Lastly, future researchers should use the SATAQ-3 adapted for men when investigating the role of the media in body image concerns since the Karazsia and Crowther (2008) found acceptable reliability and validity in their modiﬁcations of this instrument with men.

37

In summary, variables of objectiﬁcation theory did not mediate the relationship between internalization of media ideals and the drive for muscularity. Thus, although it appears that the body type ideals for men prevalently displayed in Western media do impact male body image, it is not entirely clear how this relationship is manifested and leads to an increased drive for muscularity; further research into this relationship is warranted. Speciﬁcally, researchers should aim at theoretically advancing the study of body image concerns and disturbances in men given the novelty of this research area by applying theories such as objectiﬁcation theory to male body image concerns. It is important, however, that measures of objectiﬁcation theory capture the male experience of this phenomenon to understand whether or not it is a useful framework for understanding body image concerns in men, especially since body image measures developed for women do not always translate accordingly to men (Cafri & Thompson, 2004). Research of this nature can help explain why some men internalize media ideals and develop body image concerns while others do not. References Adams, G., Turner, H., & Bucks, R. (2005). The experience of body dissatisfaction in men. Body Image, 2, 271–283. Arbour, K., & Martin Ginis, K. (2006). Effects of exposure to muscular and hypermuscular media images on young men’s muscularity dissatisfaction and body dissatisfaction. Body Image, 3, 153–161. Aubrey, J. S. (2006). Effects of sexually objectifying media on self-objectiﬁcation and body surveillance in undergraduates: Results of a 2-year panel study. Journal of Communication, 56, 366–386. Bartky, S. L. (1990). Femininity and domination: Studies in the phenomenology of oppression. New York: Routledge. Bartlett, 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, 279–310. Bohrnstedt, G. W., & Carter, T. (1971). Robustness in regression analysis. In H. L. Costner (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1971. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Boroughs, M., Cafri, G., & Thompson, J. K. (2005). Male body depilation: Prevalence and associated features of body hair removal. Sex Roles, 52, 637–644. Bottamini, G., & Ste-Marie, D. M. (2006). Male voices on body image. International Journal of Men’s Health, 5, 109–132. Cafri, G., & Thompson, J. K. (2004). Measuring male body image: A review of the current methodology. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 5, 18–29. Calogero, R. M. (2009). Objectiﬁcation processes and disordered eating in British women and men. Journal of Health Psychology, 14, 394–402. Calogero, R. M., Davis, W. N., & Thompson, J. K. (2005). The role of self-objectiﬁcation in the experience of women with eating disorders. Sex Roles, 52, 43–50. De Souza, P., & Ciclitira, K. (2005). Men and dieting: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Health Psychology, 10, 793–804. Dunkley, D. M., & Grilo, C. M. (2007). Self-criticism, low self-esteem, depressive symptoms, and over-evaluation of shape and weight in binge eating disorder patients. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45, 139–149. Ethington, C. A. (1990). A psychological model of student persistence. Research on Higher Education, 31, 279–293. Ezekiel, M., & Fox, K. A. (1959). Methods of correlation and regression analysis (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley. Frederickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectiﬁcation theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. Frederickson, B. L., Roberts, T. A., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectiﬁcation, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 269–294. Frith, H., & Gleeson, K. (2004). Clothing and embodiment: Men managing body image and appearance. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 5, 40–48. Garner, D. M. (1997, January). The 1997 Body Image Survey results. Psychology Today 30 30–44, 75, 76, 78, 84. Goldﬁeld, G., Blouin, A., & Woodside, D. B. (2006). Body image, binge eating, and bulimia nervosa in male bodybuilders. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 51, 160–168. 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, 143, 460–476. Grieve, F., Newton, C., Kelley, L., Miller, R., & Kerr, N. (2005). The preferred male body shapes of college men and women. Individual Differences Research, 3, 188–192. Hebl, M. R., King, E. B., & Lin, J. (2004). The swimsuit becomes us all: Ethnicity, gender, and vulnerability to self-objectiﬁcation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1322–1331. Heinberg, L. J., Thompson, J. K., & Stormer, S. (1995). Development and validation of the sociocultural attitudes toward appearance questionnaire. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 17, 81–89.

38

S. Daniel, S.K. Bridges / Body Image 7 (2010) 32–38

Hildebrandt, T., Schlundt, D., Langenbucher, J., & Chung, T. (2006). Presence of muscle dysmorphia symptomology among male weightlifters. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 47, 127–135. Kanayama, G., Barry, S., Hudson, J., & Pope, H. (2006). Body image and attitudes toward male roles in anabolic-androgenic steroid users. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 697–703. Karazsia, B. T., & Crowther, J. H. (2008). Psychological and behavioral correlates of the SATAQ-3 with males. Body Image, 5, 109–115. Labre, M. (2005). The male body ideal: Perspectives of readers and non-readers of ﬁtness magazines. Journal of Men’s Health and Gender, 2, 223–229. Leit, R. A., Gray, J., & Pope, H. G., Jr. (2002). The media’s representation of the ideal male body: A cause for muscle dysmorphia? International Journal of Eating Disorders, 31, 334–338. Leit, R. A., Pope, H. G., Jr., & Gray, J. (2001). Cultural expectations of muscularity in men: The evolution of Playgirl centerfolds. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 29, 90–93. Lever, J., Frederick, D., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). Does size matter? Men’s and women’s views on penis size across the lifespan. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 7, 129–143. Lorenzen, L., Grieve, F., & Thomas, A. (2004). Exposure to muscular male models decreases men’s body satisfaction. Sex Roles, 51, 743–748. Lynch, S. M., & Zellner, D. A. (1999). Figure preferences in two generations of men: The use of ﬁgure drawings illustrating differences in muscle mass. Sex Roles, 40, 833– 843. Martins, Y., Tiggemann, M., & Kirkbride, A. (2007). Those speedos become them: The role of self-objectiﬁcation in gay and heterosexual men’s body image. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 634–647. McCabe, M., & Ricciardelli, L. (2004). Body image dissatisfaction among males across the lifespan: A review of past literature. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 56, 675– 685. McCreary, D., & Sadava, S. (2001). Gender differences in relationships among perceived attractiveness, life satisfaction, and health in adult as a function of body mass index and perceived weight. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 2, 108–116. McCreary, D., & Sasse, D. (2000). An exploration of the drive for muscularity in adolescent boys and girls. Journal of American College Health, 48, 297–304. McCreary, D., Sasse, D., Saucier, D., & Dorsch, K. (2004). Measuring the drive for muscularity: Factorial validity of the Drive for Muscularity Scale in men and women. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 5, 49–58. McKinley, N. M. (1998). Gender differences in undergraduates’ body esteem: The mediating effect of objectiﬁed body consciousness and actual/ideal weight discrepancy. Sex Roles, 39, 113–123. McKinley, N. M. (1999). Women and objectiﬁed body consciousness: Mothers’ and daughters’ body experience in cultural, developmental, and familial context. Developmental Psychology, 35, 760–769. McKinley, N., & Hyde, J. (1996). The Objectiﬁed Body Consciousness Scale: Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 181–215.

Monteath, S. A., & McCabe, M. P. (1997). The inﬂuence of societal factors on female body image. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 708–727. Moradi, B., Dirks, D., & Matteson, A. (2005). Roles of sexual objectiﬁcation experiences and internalization of standards of beauty in eating disorder symptomatology: A test and extension of objectiﬁcation theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 420–428. Morrison, T., Morrison, M., & Hopkins, C. (2003). Striving for bodily perfection? An exploration of the drive for muscularity in Canadian men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4, 111–120. Morry, M., & Staska, S. (2001). Magazine exposure: Internalization, self-objectiﬁcation, eating attitudes, and body satisfaction in male and female university students. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 33, 269–279. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (2007). About BMI for adults. Retrieved October 31, 2007, from http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/ dnpa/bmi/adult_BMI/about_adult_BMI.htm. Noll, S. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). A mediational model linking self-objectiﬁcation, body shame, and disordered eating. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 623–636. Olivardia, R., Pope, H., Borowiecki, J., III, & Cohane, G. (2004). Biceps and body image: The relationship between muscularity and self-esteem, depression, and eating disorder symptoms. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 5, 112–120. Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (2nd ed.). New York: CBS College Publishing. Pope, H., Olivardia, R., Gruber, A., & Borowiecki, J. (1999). Evolving ideal of male body image as seen through action toys. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 26, 65– 72. Ridgeway, R., & Tylka, T. (2005). College men’s perceptions of ideal body composition and shape. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 6, 209–220. Ringer, F., & Crittenden, P. M. (2007). Eating disorders and attachment: The effects of hidden family processes on eating disorders. European Eating Disorders Review, 15, 119–130. Rolhinger, D. A. (2002). Eroticizing men: Cultural inﬂuences on advertising and male objectiﬁcation. Sex Roles, 46, 61–74. Schooler, D., & Ward, L. M. (2006). Average Joes: Men’s relationships with media, real bodies, and sexuality. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 7, 27–41. Schutz, H. K., & Paxton, S. J. (2007). Friendship quality, body dissatisfaction, dieting and disordered eating in adolescent girls. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 46, 67– 83. Strelan, P., & Hargreaves, D. (2005). Reasons for exercise and body esteem: Men’s response to self-objectiﬁcation. Sex Roles, 53, 495–503. Tiggemann, M., & Kuring, J. K. (2004). The role of body objectiﬁcation in disordered eating and depressed mood. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 299–311. Tiggemann, M., & Lynch, J. E. (2001). Body image across the life span in adult woman: The role of self-objectiﬁcation. Developmental Psychology, 37, 243–253. Weltzin, T., Weisensel, N., Franczyk, D., Burnett, K., Klitz, C., & Bean, P. (2005). Eating disorders in men: Update. Journal of Men’s Health and Gender, 2, 186–193.

Gaming magazines and the drive for muscularity in ...