RESERCH METHODOLOGY

ARTICLE REVIEW GAURAV POTE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY BBA7

INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT

KUSOM

ARTICLE REVIEW GAURAV POTE

SUBMITTED BY GAURAV POTE 11726

N O V E M B E R 0 2 2 0 1 4

RESERCH METHODOLOGY
ARTICLE REVIEW GAURAV POTE

Article Review The Effects of Thin and Heavy Media Images on Overweight and
Underweight Consumers: Social Comparison Processes and Behavioural Implications,
Dirk Smeesters, Thomas Mussweiler, and Namoi Mandel
Product and service advertisements have been part of marketing even before photography
and moving pictures were invented. Today, although technology has made it possible for firms to
reach out to their target consumers in many way through many channels but the age old idea of
advertisement through attractive models has not fundamentally changed; only the resources and
production mechanism has advanced rapidly over time. The models that appear in the
advertisements, print or video, are intended to create a standard image of or associated with the
product in consumers mind, so as to attract them to buy the product. But between the instance of
exposure to the advertisements and the point of purchase, and perhaps, in repeating cycles, long
after that the physical portrayal of the models creates a parallel standard to the one that otherwise
would have been the actual standard in the perception of the female consumers that tends to
influence their level of self-esteem through social comparison of similarities and dissimilarities.
Several of the early research studies in this particular area principally established that
self-esteem and body satisfaction decrease when females are exposed to thin media images.
Among others, prior social comparison researches, in both consumer behaviour and social
psychology, were concentrated on manipulating the comparison standard, such as the size of the
model (thin vs. heavy) or the extremity of the models size (moderate vs. extreme)
(Mussweilwer, Ruter, and Epstude 2004a; Smeesters and Mandel 2006). Only a handful of
studies have goner as far as accounting for the relative standing of the self on the comparison
dimension, combined with a simultaneous manipulation of the comparison standards position.
This is significant because, given the varying body mass index (BMI) of the consumers, their
chances of taking the same position on the comparison dimension also vary. This research
attempts to establish the theory that different comparison processes and outcomes occur for
individuals differing in their relative positions on the comparison dimension, that is it is not
just the standard set by the models but the relative association of similarity and dissimilarity
comparison that the consumers perform between the models and themselves that influences their
self-esteem.

RESERCH METHODOLOGY
ARTICLE REVIEW GAURAV POTE

The essence of this research that differentiates it from the prior studies is that it evaluates
the social comparison processes of individuals triggered by the models in the advertisements
taking into account the association the consumers show with the size and extremity of the size of
the models and their self assessment of themselves, and the subsequent effect of their overall
self-esteem. Social comparison is a result of human desire for self-evaluation, by which they
compare their own attributes and abilities with those of others (Festinger 1954). The results of
these comparisons inferiorities and superiorities strongly influence how people think and feel
about themselves and the emotions they experience (Epstude and Mussweiler 2009). Social
comparison may occur in one of two ways: assimilation moving toward the comparison
standard by consistently judging oneself similar to the comparison standards (Lockwood and
Kunda 1997; Mussweiler and Strack 2000b), and contrast moving away from the comparison
standard by consistently judging oneself opposite to the comparison standard (Richins 1991;
Trampe, Stapel, and Siero 2007).
Many of the previous findings are limited in their scope because of the subjective nature
of the research studies, and also as a result of various forms of biases on the consumers part.
Here in this research, though, Smeester, Mussweiler, and Mandel use various objective means
and quantitative data to evaluate the cognitive processes that play a role in affecting selfevaluations and behavioural consequences when both the comparison standards and the relative
position of the self are varied, and also demonstrate that the results of the previous studies that
the influence of thin or heavy models on the self-esteem of those with low or high BMI is similar
to the influence on those with normal BMI (Dohnt and Tigermann2006; Grabe et al. 2008) is
untrue.
The research makes following predictions:
a. There is a significant interaction between BMI and extremity of the models size on
similarity focuses, where by extremity affects the similarity focus of normal BMI females but
not of low and high BMI females.
b. There is a significant interaction between BMI and the size of the model on similarity focus,
where by the size of the model affects the similarity focus of low and high BMI females but
not of normal BMI females.
c. This activated similarity or dissimilarity focus will accompany changes in womens selfesteem a similarity focus should enhance self-esteem in the case of heavy standards, and a

RESERCH METHODOLOGY
ARTICLE REVIEW GAURAV POTE

dissimilarity focus should lower self-esteem in the case of thin standards and should enhance
self-esteem in the case of heavy standards.
Three studies have been presented in this research paper. In the first study, females with
varying BMI scale are exposed to ads with models varying ins ize and extremity of size. The
second study documents the kind of self-knowledge that becomes accessible after exposure to
the models. The third study examines how changes in similarity focus, accessible knowledge,
and self-esteem affects the females eating habits, dieting intentions, and exercise intentions.
The three studies empirically demonstrate that social comparison processes and their
evaluative and behavioural outcomes are different for individuals who take different positions on
the comparison dimension. The findings here add further to the previous knowledge in four
distinct ways. First it considers the position of consumer on the comparison dimension taking
into account the effects of assimilation and contrast. Second it demonstrates that the low and
high positioned consumers are barely affected by the position of the standard itself in the
comparison dimension. Third it illustrates how social comparison affects the consumer selfesteem and behaviour, which the prior studies have subsequently failed to do. And fourth it, for
the first time, provides limelight into the role of self-knowledge in evaluating the relative
position of the self on the comparison dimension as the BMI of the consumers and perceived
comparison standards vary.
The only limitation of this research seems to be the use of BMI, which, although,
commonly perceived as the more positive and reliable measure of a persons fitness whether
he/she is overweight, underweight or normal (Swami and Tove 2005), is still an imperfect
measure of a persons fitness as it fails to take into account muscle mass, age, gender, bone
structure, or fat distribution (Rothman 2008).