An Experimental Test of Women's Body Dissatisfaction Reduction Through Self-Affirmation

bs_bs_banner
APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: HEALTH AND WELL-BEING, 2012

doi:10.1111/j.1758-0854.2012.01068.x
An Experimental Test of Women’s Body

Dissatisfaction Reduction through Self-Affirmation aphw_1068 1..14
Michaela M. Bucchianeri* and Alexandra F. Corning

University of Notre Dame, USA
Background: Body dissatisfaction (BD)—a health concern in its own right—

often is positioned early in the causal chain toward eating pathology, and is
a practical point of intervention for those aiming to reduce its negative health
consequences. One approach to reducing people’s resistance to receipt of other
unwanted health information (e.g. about smoking) has been through the appli-
cation of self-affirmation theory. This theory asserts that the self needs to
maintain its integrity and, as such, when incoming information is threatening,
one’s defensive shields are activated and it is deflected. One way to reduce
defensiveness, however, is to bolster some other aspect of the self. Method:
We applied a one-shot, self-affirmation-based manipulation via a randomised
controlled design (N = 86) to a group of body-dissatisfied college women and
compared its effects to a control group. Results: All hypotheses predicted by
self-affirmation theory were supported: Women who were self-affirmed exhib-
ited (a) greater openness to threatening information about the dangers of BD,
(b) lower BD, and (c) greater intention to reduce criticism of their bodies.
Conclusions: The present study provided an experimental test of a mechanism of
action which might prove useful in a comprehensive intervention program.
Keywords: body dissatisfaction, body image, clinical health intervention,

self-affirmation
INTRODUCTION
Positioned early in the causal chain toward the development of eating
pathology is body dissatisfaction (e.g. Keery, van den Berg, & Thompson,
2004; Stice, 2002; Stice & Shaw, 2002; van den Berg, Thompson, Obremski-
Brandon, & Coovert, 2002). Body dissatisfaction is the negative evaluation
of parts or all of one’s body that derives primarily from unsatisfying com-
parison of one’s own body shape and size with that of the largely unattainable
super-thin cultural ideal (Stice & Shaw, 2002; see also Striegel-Moore &
* Address for correspondence: Michaela M. Bucchianeri, Division of Epidemiology and

Community Health, School of Public Health, 1300 South Second Street, Suite 300, University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55454, USA. Email: mbucchia@umn.edu
© 2012 The Authors. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being © 2012 The International
Association of Applied Psychology. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington
Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
2 BUCCHIANERI AND CORNING
Bulik, 2007). Characterised in part by persistent appearance rumination

(Ohring, Graber, & Brooks-Gunn, 2002), body dissatisfaction often involves
a pattern of entrenched thinking that is potentially difficult to interrupt, as
messages which directly counter this dissatisfaction may be perceived as
threatening and met with resistance. In other words, although a woman may
not, at any level, desire to be dissatisfied with her body, her progressive
internalisation of the impossibly-thin, cultural ideal of beauty corresponds
to an increased commitment to achieving this ideal. Therefore, attempts to
reduce the dissatisfaction she feels with her current body may be perceived as
threatening. Given this, an intervention that reduces defensiveness to poten-
tially threatening information could provide an avenue for reducing body
dissatisfaction.
Prior research has demonstrated that even seemingly modest intervention in
negative, ruminative thinking processes can have long-term, protective effects,
as early psychological states seem to provide the basis for future recursive
thinking (Cohen, Garcia, Purdie-Vaughns, Apfel, & Brzustoski, 2009). Re-
sults of work within various domains of health psychology (discussed below)
point to a potential avenue of early intervention in the recursive thought
processes that characterise body dissatisfaction: affirmation of the self.
Self-affirmation theory (Steele, 1988) posits that affirming one aspect of an
individual’s identity can spur more open—that is, less biased—processing of
information which normally is perceived as threatening to another aspect of
the self (see Sherman & Cohen, 2006, for a review). Self-affirmation inter-
ventions have been found to reduce resistance to unwelcome health-risk
information (particularly among those at greatest risk) and to enhance peo-
ple’s intentions to change their actual behaviors (see Harris & Epton, 2009,
for a review). As just a few examples, self-affirmation interventions have been
effective at increasing smokers’ openness to information about the dangers
of smoking (Armitage, Harris, Napper, & Hepton, 2008) and prompting not
only sexually active individuals’ openness to HIV-related information but
their purchase of condoms (Sherman, Nelson, & Steele, 2000).
Underlying the effectiveness of self-affirmations is not a mechanism as
simplistic as, say, an elevation of overall mood that in turn triggers greater
openness to information. Prior researchers, in fact, typically have found no
relation between mood and study outcomes (e.g. Cohen, Aronson, & Steele,
2000; Sherman, Nelson, & Steele, 2000). The means by which self-affirmations
work, assert its theorists (Sherman et al., 2000; Steele, 1988), begins first with
the premise that the self needs to, and seeks to, maintain its integrity. When
incoming information is perceived as threatening, the individual’s defensive
shields are activated, and that incoming information is deflected. One way to
reduce defensiveness, however, is to bolster some other aspect of the self. Such
bolstering acts to promote the self’s integrity and, as such, the self becomes
more permeable and open to that threatening information.
Association of Applied Psychology.
REDUCING WOMEN’S BODY DISSATISFACTION 3
There already is at least some indirect support for the operation of self-
affirmation in the body dissatisfaction domain. In a study by Bergstrom,
Neighbors, and Malheim (2009), women with characteristics that potentially
place them at higher risk for negative body attitudes (i.e. women with high
BMIs and also women with low self-esteem) appeared to engage in
self-affirming behavior after being exposed to pictures of thin models.
In particular, after being exposed to such images, women with higher BMIs
subsequently rated non-appearance aspects of themselves as more important
to them than did their control-group counterparts. The same behavior
occurred among women with lower self-esteem. In Bergstrom et al.’s study,
self-affirmation is theorised by the authors to have worked as a subsequent
means of coping with the threat to the self. Our work here is focused on
testing whether pre-emptive self-affirming can influence the perception
of incoming information about body dissatisfaction. That is, whereas Berg-
strom et al. manipulated degree of threat and assessed participants’ appar-
ent use of self-affirmation afterwards, we herein experimentally manipulate
self-affirmation pre-emptively—that is, before presenting the threatening
health information.
Can a self-affirmation manipulation affect a set of attitudes as potentially
entrenched as women’s body dissatisfaction? And can such a manipulation
show potential for effecting behavior change? Self-affirmation theory would
make just such predictions. We therefore hypothesised that body-dissatisfied
participants who were self-affirmed (compared to control-group participants)
would: (a) show greater acceptance of threatening body-related health
information, (b) exhibit less dissatisfaction with their bodies, and (c) express
greater intent to reduce self-criticism of their bodies.
METHOD
Participants and Design

Participants were 86 undergraduate women at a mid-sized, Midwestern uni-
versity, solicited from introductory and other psychology classes and com-
pensated with extra credit for their participation. Sample size was determined
a priori using Cohen’s (1992) conventions, with power .80, alpha .05, and a
medium effect size (d = .40) expected on the basis of previous findings
(Sherman et al., 2000). Participants were predominantly European American
(67%); smaller numbers were Latina (14%), Asian American (5%), African
American (1%), or “other”, including being of mixed races (13%). Partici-
pants ranged from first-years to seniors, with first-years predominating
(M age = 19.2, SD = .97). Participants provided informed consent prior to
completing the study. The study employed a randomised controlled trial,
between-subjects design.
Procedure
The experimental procedures closely followed those used by prior self-
affirmation researchers (e.g. Cohen et al., 2000; Sherman et al., 2000). First,
only at-risk women were included. This was accomplished via examination
of scores on a body dissatisfaction pretest administered as part of a large
department prescreen, the Body Dissatisfaction scale of the Eating Disorders
Inventory (Garner, Olmsted, & Polivy, 1983). This nine-item scale was used
to screen out those having low or no body dissatisfaction. Following conven-
tional EDI administration procedures, participants indicated how frequently,
on a scale from 0 (never) to 5 (always), they are dissatisfied with parts or
aspects of their bodies (e.g. “I think that my stomach is too big”). Higher
scores indicate greater body dissatisfaction. The criterion-related validity of
this subscale is evidenced by its relation to clinicians’ assessments (r = .44;
Garner et al., 1983) and its construct validity has been demonstrated by
its strong correlations with the Drive for Thinness subscale of the EDI
(rs = .63-.67; see Espelage et al., 2003; Shroff & Thompson, 2006) and
more moderate correlation with the Physical Appearance Comparison
Scale (Thompson, Heinberg, & Tantleff, 1991) which assesses the tendency to
compare one’s appearance with others’ (r = .48; see Shroff & Thompson,
2006). Finally, the Body Dissatisfaction subscale has demonstrated evidence
of its internal consistency with college-age women (Cronbach’s a = .84-.89;
Watts, Cranney, & Gleitzman, 2008), and in the present study, Cronbach’s a
was estimated at .89. Eligibility for inclusion in the present study was based
on obtaining a scale score greater than .5 SD above the prescreen sample
mean (N = 246; M[SD] = 2.65[.99]).
Second, following completion of the prescreen assessment, eligible partici-
pants were contacted via email and invited to participate in the present study,
titled, “Your Best Self”, which they were told examined people’s “personal
values and characteristics”. Those agreeing to participate then were ran-
domly assigned, via a random number generator, to either the experimental
(self-affirmation) (n = 43) or control (no self-affirmation) (n = 43) group.
(As expected from random assignment of participants to conditions,
demographic factors (i.e. age, race, year in school, and BMI) were evenly
distributed across the two conditions.) To prevent bias due to expectancy,
participants were blinded to their condition assignment. When participants
arrived at the study session, they were greeted by a female experimenter and
tested in groups of one to four in individual, quiet work spaces.
Third, each participant was provided an envelope containing either the
experimental or control version of the study packet (the measures and
materials of which are detailed below). The packet was identical in appearance
across conditions and contained, in the following order, distracter items
purportedly assessing attitudes regarding money and community service, the
self-affirmation task or the control task, a clinical “newsletter” about the risks
associated with body dissatisfaction, dependent measures assessing accep-
tance of the threatening newsletter information, body dissatisfaction, inten-
tion to change behavior, demographic and manipulation check items, and an
item assessing awareness of the study’s purpose. The placement of the affir-
mation manipulation before (vs. after) presentation of the threatening stimu-
lus (i.e. the clinical newsletter detailing the dangers of body dissatisfaction) was
based on Critcher, Dunning, and Armor’s (2010) experimental results showing
that affirmation of the self prior to presentation of threatening information is
key to reducing defensiveness. Finally, before leaving, participants were
debriefed, thanked, and invited to ask any questions they might have.
Measures and Materials

Self-Affirmation Manipulation (and Control Task). To self-affirm half the
participants, we followed a commonly used approach to self-affirmation (see
Cohen et al., 2000). First, all participants received a list (modified from the
form published by Cohen et al., 2000; see below) of 11 characteristics and
values. The list comprises such characteristics as “sense of humor”, “social
skills”, and “musical ability/appreciation”. Similar to Cohen et al.’s decision
to exclude any characteristics on the list that were potentially related to the
attitudes being assessed in that study, we excluded one characteristic from the
list that was body-related (i.e. “athletic ability”) and replaced it with “critical
thinking skills”. Next, participants were instructed to rank the characteristics
and values, from most to least, in terms of “how important each is to you,
personally, in your life”.
Finally, participants in the self-affirmation condition were instructed to
refer to the “first-ranked value or characteristic” and write it in a blank space
provided. They then were instructed to “Write about why your first-ranked
value or characteristic is important to you and describe a time in your life when
it proved successful for you”. Those in the control (i.e. no-affirmation) condi-
tion were instead instructed, in equivalent phrasing, to refer to their eleventh-
ranked value or characteristic, write it in the blank space provided, and then
write about why it might be important to the average college student.
Threatening Stimulus. All participants then read an article titled, “Costly

Self-Criticism”, which ostensibly was published in a clinical newsletter titled
Women’s Health Watch.1 The newsletter took the form of a professional
publication, which looked as though it might be provided by a physician’s or
psychologist’s office. Indeed, it did contain factual information about body
1
All materials available upon request.
dissatisfaction culled from the recent scientific literature. The newsletter

described health risks associated with body dissatisfaction and disordered
eating, and concluded by stating that body-related self-criticism poses serious
risks to women’s health. Expert raters (i.e. eating disorder researchers and
clinicians; N = 3) provided feedback on the newsletter’s content and phrasing,
which then was incorporated into a series of revisions. In addition, three
rounds of piloting with undergraduate participants (N = 26) were conducted
to assess readers’ perceptions of the newsletter with regard to credibility
and threat. Numerical ratings were obtained regarding the extent to which
the newsletter caused pilot readers to feel threatened, the extent to which the
newsletter was perceived as a credible source of information, and the extent to
which readers accurately recalled key information from the newsletter (i.e.
“Regarding the issue of Women’s Health Watch that you were handed, what
was it about?”, “According to the Health Watch newsletter, what is the #1
wish of women and girls?”). Qualitative (written and verbal) feedback also
was obtained at each stage of piloting. These data were incorporated into
refinement of the newsletter until final pilot responses indicated that respon-
dents overwhelmingly perceived the newsletter to be credible, memorable, and
threatening.
Acceptance of Threatening Information. To assess acceptance of the

threatening information regarding the problems associated with body dissat-
isfaction, we followed procedures similar to those used in prior self-affirmation
studies (Sherman et al., 2000). Participants responded to the item, “How
important do you think it is that women just accept their bodies in whatever
form, shape, and size they come in?” on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all impor-
tant) to 7 (extremely important). This item was forward-scored so that higher
scores would indicate greater acceptance of the threatening information.
Body Dissatisfaction Posttest. To assess post-manipulation body dissat-

isfaction, eight items (see Stice, Bohon, Marti, & Fischer, 2008) were drawn
from the Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction with Body Parts Scale (Berscheid,
Walster, & Bohrnstedt, 1973). Seven of the items are body parts (e.g. thighs,
waist, stomach) and one refers to weight. We added the phrase, “at this
moment”, to the question prompt to cue the respondent to think about her
body in the present moment, versus more generally. The respondent was
instructed to indicate, “How satisfied are you at this moment with the way
your body looks?” She indicated her satisfaction with each on a 6-point scale
ranging from 1 (extremely satisfied) to 6 (extremely dissatisfied). All items are
forward-scored and a mean is derived. Higher scores indicate greater body
dissatisfaction. This scale previously has demonstrated both strong internal
consistency (Cronbach’s a = .94) and 3-week test–retest reliability (r = .90;
Stice et al., 2008). Cronbach’s a in the present study was .77.
Behavioral Intention. To assess behavioral intention, consistent with
prior studies (Sherman et al., 2000), participants were asked about the extent
to which they would change their subsequent behavior in the relevant domain.
In this case, the domain was body-related self-criticism (e.g. self-critical judg-
ments, engagement in fat talk) and they were asked, “Looking ahead . . . To
what extent do you think you actually will be less critical of your body?” This
question was embedded in a set of distracter items of parallel wording
that asked the participant to indicate the degree of her intentions to be, for
example, more generous with her money and more involved in student lead-
ership activities. All items used a response scale ranging from 1 (I definitely will)
to 7 (I definitely will not) which was reverse-scored so that higher scores would
indicate a greater intention to change their behavior.
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
Prior to conducting the substantive analyses, a series of checks on the data
were made. First, because prior research suggests that the effect of a self-
affirmation manipulation can be attenuated by participants’ awareness of its
link to subsequent threatening information (Sherman et al., 2009), suspicion
of the present study’s purpose was assessed via this item, “If you had to guess,
what do you think the purpose of this study was?” Participant responses, read
by two assistants, revealed no awareness of the study’s aims; therefore, no
cases were excluded. Second, to assess adherence to the manipulation, two
trained, female raters read each essay to evaluate whether the participant
followed the task instructions. Indeed, all essays were judged as having shown
adherence to the instructions given with the assigned condition. Third, the
clinical newsletter used as the threatening stimulus already had been carefully
piloted before use in the study (see details above). To assess the extent to
which participants in the present study read and understood its contents,
however, two multiple-choice content questions were asked. All participants
provided correct responses to these questions. Fourth, prior researchers
(e.g. Armitage et al., 2008; Bergstrom et al., 2009; Sherman et al., 2000) have
assessed self-reported mood among their self-affirmed participants to rule
it out as responsible for self-affirmation’s effects. We followed procedures
used in prior studies to assess post-manipulation mood (e.g. Sherman et al.,
2000). After the manipulation, participants’ mood was assessed using a 1
(extremely bad ) to 9 (extremely good ) scale (i.e. “How are you feeling right
now? Describe your mood.”). Self-affirmed participants (M = 5.19) did not
differ from control-group participants (M = 4.93) on mood, F(1, 84) = .51,
p = .48 (Cohen’s d = .15), suggesting that the manipulation did not influence
self-reported mood state. Finally, due to random assignment of participants
to the self-affirmation and control conditions, prescreen levels of body dis-

satisfaction were expected to not differ significantly across the conditions,
and indeed ANOVA results provided no evidence that they differed (respec-
tive Ms[SDs] = 3.69[.49], 3.61[.47]; F[1, 84] = .67, p = .41; Cohen’s d = .18).
Substantive Analyses
The substantive analyses were tests of three hypotheses. To test each hypoth-
esis, a one-way ANOVA was conducted on each dependent variable to assess
for significant differences across the self-affirmed and control conditions.2 All
means are presented in Table 1.
First, a test of the participants’ acceptance of the threatening information
was conducted. ANOVA results indicated that participants in the self-
affirmed condition were significantly more accepting of the threatening
information in the newsletter than were participants in the control condition,
F(1, 84) = 4.45, p = .04. The size of this effect is medium (Cohen’s d = .45).
Second, body dissatisfaction (as measured by the Satisfaction and
Dissatisfaction with Body Parts Scale; Berscheid et al., 1973) differed signifi-
cantly across the conditions, with those who were self-affirmed having
significantly less body dissatisfaction following the manipulation than did
their control-group counterparts, F(1, 84) = 4.5, p = .04. This effect is of
TABLE 1
Effects of Self-Affirmation on Body Dissatisfaction Variables
Outcome Self-Affirmation condition Control condition
Acceptance of information about body 5.86 5.50

dissatisfaction (.75) (.85)
Body dissatisfaction 4.23 4.55
(.72) (.68)
Behavioral intention to be 3.34 2.81
less body-critical (1.27) (1.15)
Note: Means are presented first; SDs are in parentheses. Means within all pairs are significantly different at
p < .05.
2
A set of exploratory tests was conducted to assess whether the effects of condition were
moderated by pretest levels of body dissatisfaction. Results of ANCOVAs testing potential
interactions indicated no evidence of moderation of condition assignment by pretest levels of
body dissatisfaction for any of the three outcome variables. This may be due to the true absence
of such an effect. It also, however, may be due to inadequate power to find such an effect if
present or the necessarily restricted range of the pretest body dissatisfaction variable, given that
all participants invited to participate had elevated levels.
medium size (Cohen’s d = .46). This effect remained unchanged even after
controlling for baseline levels of body dissatisfaction.
Third, when asked about their intention to change their behavior to be
less critical of their bodies in the future, those who were self-affirmed
showed greater intention to be less critical than did those in the control
group, F(1, 84) = 4.01, p = .0485. This effect, too, is of medium size (Cohen’s
d = .44).
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this paper was to test the application of self-affirmation
theory (Steele, 1988) to body dissatisfaction—a significant problem in its own
right, and a clear risk factor in the development of eating pathology (e.g. Stice
& Shaw, 2002; van den Berg and colleagues, 2002, 2004)—via a very brief,
theoretically based manipulation. This manipulation has been shown to be
successful in numerous other health domains, including smoking cessation,
safe sex, and caffeine consumption (Armitage et al., 2008; Sherman et al.,
2000).
Self-affirmation theory posits that when incoming information is per-
ceived as threatening, it is deflected by the individual unless some other
aspect of the self is bolstered, say, through affirmation. The reasoning
behind this is that such bolstering helps the self maintain its integrity,
thereby allowing the individual to become more open to the theretofore
threatening information (Steele, 1988). The results of the present study
provide an initial basis for future work exploring the application of self-
affirmation theory to the body dissatisfaction domain. The manipulation
was effective at: (a) increasing college women’s openness to information
about the problems associated with body dissatisfaction, (b) decreasing their
actual body dissatisfaction at the time of assessment, and (c) increasing their
intentions to be less critical in their thoughts and in their comments in the
future regarding their bodies.
The pervasive and deeply held associations in contemporary Western
culture between thinness and goodness, and fatness and badness (e.g.
Schwartz, Vartanian, Nosek, & Brownell, 2006), may contribute to a collec-
tive sense among lay persons and professionals alike of body dissatisfaction
as largely intractable. Because body dissatisfaction, however, is predictive
of a broad range of deleterious outcomes affecting health and well-being
(e.g. Ackard, Croll, & Kearney-Cooke, 2002; Cooley, & Toray, 2001; Paxton,
Neumark-Sztainer, Hannan, & Eisenberg, 2006; Stice, 2002; van den Berg &
Neumark-Sztainer, 2007), it cannot be circumvented: Researchers and prac-
titioners must find a way to decrease the prevalence of this problem.
It is not clear, however, that body dissatisfaction—a consequence of
thin-ideal internalisation—can be countered head on. Direct attempts at
persuading chronically body-dissatisfied women to give up their commitment

to the thin ideal are likely to be met with resistance. As clinicians well know,
it is very difficult to eradicate an attitude or behavior to which an individual,
at some level, “wants” to cleave. We suggest, in line with self-affirmation
theory, that the individual’s commitment to, in this case, the thin ideal and,
by extension, her body dissatisfaction, is a result of its entrenchment in her
conception of self—and not because she, at any level, actually “wants” to be
body dissatisfied. More to the point, it is threatening to receive direct mes-
sages that urge abandonment of beliefs or behaviors that may be integral to
the self. This may be why direct inroads, such as those offered by psycho-
education alone, are relatively ineffective. If it were simply a matter of pro-
viding women with corrective information (i.e. that as seductively imitable as
media images may be, they also are nonreplicable), there would be far less
body dissatisfaction, as women, in fact, have become increasingly media
literate (Levine & Piran, 2004).
Several limitations of the present study should be noted. First, the
sample was limited to young adults attending college, and the vast majority
was European American. Before any broad inferences can be made about
its efficacy, tests of the manipulation with non-college samples and also
samples from ethnic minority populations are needed. Moreover, even a fully
developed intervention cannot be considered definitively efficacious until
it has been shown so over repeated trials and by different investigative
teams (Chambless & Hollon, 1998). In addition, although consistent with the
method of prior self-affirmation studies (e.g. Cohen et al., 2000; Sherman
et al., 2000), the use of single-item measures of threat acceptance and behav-
ioral intention have potential measurement limitations.
Whereas the ultimate goal of any clinical intervention is behavior
change, in this study, assessed were women’s intentions to change their
body-dissatisfaction-related behaviors. A logical next step is assessment of
the intervention’s effects on actual behavior. And whereas we conceptualised
the target dependent variable, reduced body dissatisfaction, as a decrease in
body self-criticism, others may prioritise alternative indicators. In any case,
a behavioral test could be conducted by way of, for example, a staged
opportunity to exhibit or refrain from exhibiting body dissatisfaction, for
example, upon ostensibly exiting the experimental session. In addition, the
self-affirmation manipulation’s effects over time are not known. Future
assessments of this manipulation to reduce body dissatisfaction should,
therefore, include follow-up assessments. Such assessments also might evalu-
ate whether booster affirmations are required to sustain the produced effects.
Finally, although mood was excluded as a potential mediator as in previous
research, the present study does not provide insight into the underlying
processes guiding self-affirmation’s influence on the observed engagement
with the threatening information. It may be, for instance, that among
participants for whom the threat stimulus was most relevant, self-affirmation
actually heightened implicit responsiveness to this information (see Van Kon-
ingsbruggen, Das, & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2009). Subsequent, focused testing is
needed to identify the mechanism of change.
These limitations notwithstanding, what is clear from this preliminary
randomised controlled trial is that in a sample of college women, self-
affirming an important aspect of their identities enabled them to be more
open to the problems associated with body dissatisfaction, decrease their own
level of body dissatisfaction at the time of assessment, and plan to be less
critical of their bodies in the future.
Clear strengths of the self-affirmation intervention presented here are that
it is very brief, virtually self-run, and requires a one-shot-only administration,
all of which ease its facilitation, adherence, and portability. In their synthesis
of body dissatisfaction-related findings, Stice and Shaw (2002) suggest that
eating disorder prevention programs would be enhanced by including com-
ponents targeted at reducing body dissatisfaction. The self-affirmation inter-
vention described and tested in this paper, if found to be replicable within and
across body-dissatisfied populations, could easily be integrated into existing
prevention programs.
Certainly, body dissatisfaction reduction interventions also can be admin-
istered as stand-alone programs. Effective means of interfering with, in par-
ticular, girls’ developing sense of body dissatisfaction (Bearman, Presnell,
Martinez, & Stice, 2006) inarguably are needed. From a self-affirmation
perspective, however, the program participant must be adequately threatened
by information pertaining to the health issue being addressed. For example,
in this case, she must find threatening others’ encouragement to let go of her
body criticism and dissatisfaction. Therefore, it may not be until girls are of
high school age—and their criticism of their bodies is sufficiently in place
(Bearman et al., 2006; Jones, 2004)—that they are psychologically prepared
for a self-affirmation intervention. The extent to which the self-affirmation
intervention presented here would prove efficacious with adolescent girls and
whether their levels of thin-ideal internalisation would moderate its effective-
ness remain to be investigated. Related, although the current sample con-
sisted exclusively of more highly body-dissatisfied women, it may be that the
self-affirmation manipulation would have produced differential effects for
those at varying levels of body dissatisfaction. As such, an important next
step is to test the efficacy of this manipulation with girls and women of
various ages while identifying moderators of its success so that it can be
directed for further testing and, eventually, for use with its most likely ben-
eficiaries. In the meantime, this study provides initial empirical and experi-
mental evidence of the effectiveness of a self-affirmation manipulation and,
in doing so, uncovers a new potential pathway for activating body-attitude
change.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We thank Jamie Serrano for her data collection work.
REFERENCES
Ackard, D.M., Croll, J.K., & Kearney-Cooke, A. (2002). Dieting frequency
among college females: Association with disordered eating, body image, and
related psychological problems. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 52, 129–136.
Armitage, C.J., Harris, P.R., Napper, L., & Hepton, G. (2008). Efficacy of a brief
intervention to increase acceptance of health risk information among adult
smokers with low socioeconomic status. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 22,
88–95.
Bearman, S.K., Presnell, K., Martinez, E., & Stice, E. (2006). The skinny on body
dissatisfaction: A longitudinal study of adolescent girls and boys. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 35, 229–241.
Bergstrom, R.L., Neighbors, C., & Malheim, J.E. (2009). Media comparisons and
threats to body image: Seeking evidence of self-affirmation. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 28, 264-280.
Berscheid, E., Walster, E., & Bohrnstedt, G. (1973). The happy American body: A
survey report. Psychology Today, 7, 119-131.
Chambless, D.L., & Hollon, S.D. (1998). Defining empirically supported therapies.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 7-18.
Cohen, G.L., Aronson, J., & Steele, C.M. (2000). When beliefs yield to evidence:
Reducing biased evaluation by affirming the self. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 26, 1151-1164.
Cohen, G.L., Garcia, J., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Apfel, N., & Brzustoski, P. (2009).
Recursive processes in self-affirmation: Intervening to close minority achievement
gap. Science, 324, 400–403.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
Cooley, E., & Toray, T. (2001). Body image and personality predictors of eating
disorder symptoms during the college years. International Journal of Eating Dis-
orders, 30, 28–36.
Critcher, C.R., Dunning, D., & Armor, D.A. (2010). When self-affirmations reduce
defensiveness: Timing is key. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 947–
959.
Espelage, D.L., Mazzeo, S.E., Aggen, S.H., Quittner, A.L., Sherman, R., &
Thompson, R. (2003). Examining the construct validity of the Eating Disorder
Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 15, 71–80.
Garner, D.M., Olmsted, M.P., & Polivy, J. (1983). Development and validation of
a multidimensional eating disorder inventory for anorexia nervosa and bulimia.
International Journal of Eating Disorders, 2, 15–34.
Harris, P.R., & Epton, T. (2009). The impact of self-affirmation on health cognition,
health behaviour and other health-related responses: A narrative review. Social
and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 962–978.
Jones, D.C. (2004). Body image among adolescent girls and boys: A longitudinal
study. Developmental Psychology, 40, 823–835.
Keery, H., van den Berg, P., & Thompson, J.K. (2004). An evaluation of the Tripartite
Influence Model of body dissatisfaction and eating disturbance with adolescent
girls. Body Image, 1, 237–251.
Levine, M.P., & Piran, N. (2004). The role of body image in the prevention of eating
disorders. Body Image, 1, 57-70.
Ohring, R., Graber, J.A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2002). Girls’ recurrent and concurrent
body dissatisfaction: Correlates and consequences over 8 years. International
Journal of Eating Disorders, 31, 404–415.
Paxton, S.J., Neumark-Sztainer, D., Hannan, P.J., & Eisenberg, M.E. (2006). Body
dissatisfaction prospectively predicts depressive mood and low self-esteem in ado-
lescent girls and boys. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 35,
539–549.
Schwartz, M.B., Vartanian, L.R., Nosek, B.A., & Brownell, K.D. (2006). The influ-
ence of one’s own body weight on implicit and explicit anti-fat bias. Obesity, 14,
440-447.
Sherman, D.K., & Cohen, G.L. (2006). The psychology of self-defense: Self-
affirmation theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 183–242.
Sherman, D.K., Cohen, G.L., Nelson, L.D., Nussbaum, A.D., Bunyan, D.P., &
Garcia, J. (2009). Affirmed yet unaware: Exploring the role of awareness in the
process of self-affirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 745–
764.
Sherman, D.A., Nelson, L.D., & Steele, C.M. (2000). Do messages about health
risks threaten the self? Increasing the acceptance of threatening health messages via
self-affirmation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1046-1058.
Shroff, H., & Thompson, J.K. (2006). Peer influences, body-image dissatisfaction,
eating dysfunction and self-esteem in adolescent girls. Journal of Health Psychol-
ogy, 11, 533–551.
Steele, C.M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of
the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 21:
Social psychological studies of the self: Perspectives and programs (pp. 261-302).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Stice, E. (2002). Risk and maintenance factors for eating pathology: A meta-analytic
review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 825-848.
Stice, E., Bohon, C., Marti, C.N., & Fischer, K. (2008). Subtyping women with
bulimia nervosa along dietary and negative affect dimensions: Further evidence
of reliability and validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76,
1022-1033.
Stice, E., & Shaw, H. (2002). Role of body dissatisfaction in the onset and
maintenance of eating pathology: A synthesis of research findings. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 53, 985-993.
Striegel-Moore, R.H., & Bulik, C.M. (2007). Risk factors for eating disorders. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 62, 181-198.
Thompson, J.K., Heinberg, L., & Tantleff, S. (1991). Physical Appearance Compari-
son Scale. Behavior Therapist, 14, 174.
van den Berg, P., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2007). Fat ’n happy 5 years later: Is it bad
for overweight girls to like their bodies? Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 415–417.
van den Berg, P., Thompson, J.K., Obremski-Brandon, K., & Coovert, M. (2002).
The Tripartite Influence Model of body image and eating disturbance: A covari-
ance structure modeling investigation testing the mediational role of appearance
comparison. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 53, 1007–1020.
van Koningsbruggen, G.M., Das, E., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D.R. (2009). How
self-affirmation reduces defensive processing of threatening health information:
Evidence at the implicit level. Health Psychology, 28, 563–568.
Watts, K., Cranney, J., & Gleitzman, D. (2008). Automatic evaluation of body-
related images. Body Image, 5, 352-364.

An Experimental Test of Women's Body Dissatisfaction Reduction Through Self-Affirmation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Experimental Test of Women's Body Dissatisfaction Reduction Through Self-Affirmation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

bs_bs_banner

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: HEALTH AND WELL-BEING, 2012

An Experimental Test of Women’s Body

Michaela M. Bucchianeri* and Alexandra F. Corning

Background: Body dissatisfaction (BD)—a health concern in its own right—

Keywords: body dissatisfaction, body image, clinical health intervention,

* Address for correspondence: Michaela M. Bucchianeri, Division of Epidemiology and

Bulik, 2007). Characterised in part by persistent appearance rumination

Participants and Design

Measures and Materials

Threatening Stimulus. All participants then read an article titled, “Costly

dissatisfaction culled from the recent scientific literature. The newsletter

Acceptance of Threatening Information. To assess acceptance of the

Body Dissatisfaction Posttest. To assess post-manipulation body dissat-

to the self-affirmation and control conditions, prescreen levels of body dis-

Outcome Self-Affirmation condition Control condition

Acceptance of information about body 5.86 5.50

persuading chronically body-dissatisfied women to give up their commitment

You might also like