Body Image 3 (2006) 153161 www.elsevier.

com/locate/bodyimage

Effects of exposure to muscular and hypermuscular media images on young mens muscularity dissatisfaction and body dissatisfaction
Kelly P. Arbour *, Kathleen A. Martin Ginis
McMaster University, Department of Kinesiology, Hamilton, Ont., Canada L8S 4K1 Received 13 September 2005; received in revised form 28 March 2006; accepted 29 March 2006

Abstract This study examined the effects of exposure to muscular and hypermuscular media images on young mens body images, and the moderating roles of baseline body dissatisfaction (BD) and muscularity dissatisfaction (MD). Men (M age = 21.9, SD = 2.8) were exposed to pictures of muscular (n = 34) or hypermuscular (n = 29) male physiques throughout a 30-min health seminar. In support of the study hypotheses, higher levels of baseline BD and MD were associated with greater post-seminar BD and MD. In addition, MD moderated the effects of the exposure conditions on BD; greater baseline MD was associated with greater post-seminar BD, but only among men who viewed the muscular images. These results speak to the importance of pre-existing muscularity concerns in determining mens reactions to muscular physique images, and suggest that exposure to the media ideal of muscularity, and not muscularity per se, elicits body dissatisfaction in men with pre-existing muscularity concerns. # 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Media exposure; Muscularity; Body dissatisfaction; Hypermuscular; Moderators

Introduction The increased cultural preference for a muscular physique has become a recent topic of interest (Cafri & Thompson, 2004; Leit, Pope, & Gray, 2000; McCreary & Sasse, 2000; Olivardia, Pope, Borowiecki, & Cohane, 2004), with many researchers attempting to elucidate why some men desire to be more muscular. According to Cashs (2002) cognitive-behavioral model of body image, cultural socialization is one of four dimensions that shape the development of ones body image. Throughout Westernized cultures, the mass media has been identied as the main culprit for conveying idealized, gender-specic physique standards (Tigge* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 905 525 9140x27937; fax: +1 905 523 6011. E-mail address: arbourkp@mcmaster.ca (K.P. Arbour). 1740-1445/$ see front matter # 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2006.03.004

mann, 2002). Whether one watches television or reads a magazine, the manifested body ideals are easily recognized that of a thin, yet toned body for women (Brownell, 1991) and a lean, V-shaped body for men (Leit et al., 2000; Olivardia et al., 2004). In studies of the effects of media exposure on womens body image, brief exposure to slides, magazine photos, and television commercials showing ultra-thin models has been shown to increase body dissatisfaction (Groesz, Levine, & Murnen, 2002), social physique anxiety (Thornton & Maurice, 1997), mood disturbance (Cattarin, Thompson, Thomas, & Williams, 2000), and weight concerns (Ogden & Mundray, 1996) and to decrease self-perceived attractiveness (Cash, Cash, & Butters, 1983), self-esteem (Thornton & Maurice, 1997) and condence (Stice & Shaw, 1994). Conversely, studies of young men suggest that acute exposure to thin male models may not be

154

K.P. Arbour, K.A. Martin Ginis / Body Image 3 (2006) 153161

detrimental to mens body image. Ogden and Mundray (1996) found college-aged men to report greater body satisfaction and to rate themselves as less fat, more sexy, more toned, more t and perceive less of a discrepancy between their preferred body size and their actual body size after viewing photographs of thin men in comparison to women who viewed photographs of thin women. In contrast, studies that have exposed men to the muscular media ideal have shown profound negative inuences on young mens body images (Leit, Gray, & Pope, 2002; Lorenzen, Grieve, & Thomas, 2004). In particular, Leit and colleagues found that college-aged men who were briey exposed to photographs of muscular men in popular magazine advertisements subsequently reported greater dissatisfaction with their muscularity, but not their body fat, in comparison to men who were shown images of clothing advertisements. In another study, college-aged men who were shown photographs of muscular male physiques reported greater body dissatisfaction after viewing the muscular images, while no change was found among men exposed to a combination of thin, normal weight and slightly obese images (Lorenzen et al., 2004). Furthermore, in one of the only studies to examine the effects of television commercials endorsing the muscular media ideal on young mens body image (Agliata & Tantleff-Dunn, 2004), men who watched a series of commercial advertisements featuring muscular models reported greater muscularity dissatisfaction and depression immediately following the viewing, in comparison to men who watched commercials containing control (i.e., older, less muscular) models. Taken together, these studies suggest that exposure to muscular media body ideals can increase mens body and muscularity dissatisfaction. Yet in all of these studies, the experimental, muscular images were of toned, athletic physiques (i.e., physiques typically found in Mens Health magazine). It is not known whether exposure to other types of muscular physiques (i.e., hypermuscular physiques found in body-builder magazines) would evoke similar, or even greater body image and muscularity dissatisfaction concerns in young men. This is an important research question that would address whether it is exposure to muscularity per se that evokes male body image concerns, or whether it is exposure to mediabased muscularity ideals. This issue was addressed in the present experiment by examining the effects of exposure to muscular and hypermuscular images on mens muscularity dissatisfaction and body dissatisfaction. Given previous research showing that muscular

images have a stronger effect on body dissatisfaction than thin images (Lorenzen et al., 2004), it was anticipated that hypermuscular images would have an even greater effect on young mens body images than muscular images. However, we expected that some men would be more affected by the images than others. In Groesz et al.s (2002) meta-analysis of the effects of media exposure on body image, women with a history of body dissatisfaction were more adversely affected by brief exposure to thin media stimuli than women without a history of body dissatisfaction. A study of mens psychological responses to muscular body ideals produced similar results. In particular, high body-dissatised men expressed greater emotional arousal when viewing idealized same-sex physique slides than low body-dissatised men (Hausenblas, Janelle, Gardner, & Hagan, 2002). As such, our rst hypothesis was that men with higher levels of body dissatisfaction would report greater body dissatisfaction and muscularity dissatisfaction following exposure to the media images than men with lower body dissatisfaction. Furthermore, body dissatisfaction was predicted to moderate the effects of the exposure conditions, such that men with higher body dissatisfaction would report greater body dissatisfaction and muscularity dissatisfaction after exposure to the media images. Baseline differences in muscularity dissatisfaction were also expected to inuence mens reactions to the muscular and hypermuscular images. To date, muscularity dissatisfaction has not been examined as a moderator of media exposure effects, despite its salience among young men. Indeed, Olivardia et al. (2004) found a substantial amount of muscularity dissatisfaction within a sample of college-aged men; study participants identied the ideal male as having, on average, 25 pounds more muscle mass than their own bodies. Given the centrality of muscularity to mens body images (cf. Olivardia et al.), our second hypothesis was that men with greater baseline muscularity dissatisfaction would exhibit more body dissatisfaction and muscularity dissatisfaction after exposure to the muscular media images than men with lower baseline muscularity dissatisfaction. In addition, baseline muscularity dissatisfaction was expected to moderate the effects of the exposure conditions, such that men with higher muscularity dissatisfaction would report greater body dissatisfaction and muscularity dissatisfaction after exposure to the hypermuscular images than after exposure to the muscular images.

K.P. Arbour, K.A. Martin Ginis / Body Image 3 (2006) 153161

155

In summary, the purpose of the present experiment was to examine the main and moderating effects of body dissatisfaction and muscularity dissatisfaction on young mens body images following exposure to muscular versus hypermuscular media images. Importantly, our methodology aimed to approximate young mens exposure to physique images in real-world situations. To date, the majority of media exposure studies have shown images in a laboratory setting, usually without any context (i.e., subjects are exposed to a series of photographs of models). In the real world though, physique images are not without context; rather they are presented with other material (such as written healthrelated information, product advertisements). To address the limited external validity of previous investigations, we examined the effects of muscular and hypermuscular media images displayed in the context of a 30-min nutrition and weight-training seminar. Method Participants Seventy-four male volunteers were recruited from a southern Ontario university for a study that ostensibly examined young mens health-behavior attitudes. Participants were recruited through posters, notices on the university website and electronic billboard, inclass announcements and at the university tness center. Informed consent was obtained from all participants and the study was approved by the universitys Research Ethics Board. Design A pre-test, post-test experimental design was used. Participants completed baseline body image measures, attended a seminar in which either muscular or hypermuscular images were viewed, and immediately following the seminar, completed post-test body image measures. Measures Body dissatisfaction. Cognitive aspects of body image were assessed with the Body Areas Satisfaction subscale (BASS) of the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ; Brown, Cash, & Mikulka, 1990). The nine-item BASS was used to assess level of satisfaction with nine bodily aspects (e.g., face, hair, weight, height, upper torso, middle

torso, lower torso, muscle tone and overall appearance). The BASS has proven valid and reliable in a previous 12-week weight-training study involving male university students (Martin Ginis, Eng, Arbour, Hartman, & Philips, 2005). Participants were asked to indicate their degree of satisfaction-dissatisfaction with each of these discrete body features on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (very dissatised) to 5 (very satised). Items were reversed scored and an overall BASS score was calculated by summing across all items, with a total score ranging from 9 to 45. Higher scores on the BASS represented higher body dissatisfaction. Internal consistency of the scale at baseline and post-test was .76 and .83, respectively. Muscularity dissatisfaction. The seven-item muscularity attitudes subscale of the Drive for Muscularity Scale (DMS; McCreary, Sasse, Saucier, & Dorsch, 2004) was used to measure muscularity dissatisfaction. Respondents indicated the extent to which each item applied to them (e.g., I wish that I were more muscular) using a scale ranging from 1 (always) to 6 (never), with total possible scores ranging from 7 to 42. All items were reverse scored such that higher scores indicated a greater drive for muscularity/muscularity dissatisfaction. The subscale has demonstrated acceptable reliability among male high school and college-aged students (a = .88) and its validity has been supported with observed correlations with depression, self-esteem, and the use of behaviors to increase muscularity (McCreary et al., 2004). In the current study, the subscale demonstrated acceptable reliability at baseline (a = .88) and post-test (a = .92). Demographics. Participants indicated their age, family ethnic background, smoking status, weighttraining participation over the past 6 months, and monthly exposure to health and tness magazines. Experimental stimuli Two types of photographs were used as experimental stimuli. The rst set of photographs consisted of 45 images of extremely muscular male physiques (e.g., hypermuscular chest and arm muscles, wide shoulders, narrow waist). These photographs were obtained from various body-building and weight-training magazines (e.g., Flex, Natural Body-building and Fitness, Musclemag International) and were labelled as hypermuscular images. The second set of photographs consisted of 45 images of moderately muscular male physiques (i.e., toned, yet not overly muscular). These photographs were obtained from various health and tness

156

K.P. Arbour, K.A. Martin Ginis / Body Image 3 (2006) 153161

magazines and websites (e.g., Mens Health, Runners World, on-line swimming magazines) and were labelled as muscular images. Similar to Leit et al.s (2002) procedure to establish content validity for the two sets of images, 12 male undergraduate and graduate students rated the level of muscularity portrayed by each image, using a 10-point scale with the anchors 1 (not at all muscular), 5 (somewhat muscular) and 10 (extremely muscular). Mean muscularity rating scores were calculated for each image. The 24 images that received the lowest mean muscularity ratings were used as stimuli during the exposure manipulation for the muscular condition, whereas the 24 images that were given the highest mean muscularity ratings were used as stimuli for the hypermuscular condition. A paired samples t-test indicated that the mean muscularity ratings of the muscular images (M = 3.8, SD = 1.3) were indeed signicantly lower than those for the hypermuscular physique images (M = 9.3, SD = .6), t(11) = 16.87, p < .001. Procedure Interested participants contacted the rst author via e-mail or phone. Men who were between the ages of 1835 years were scheduled to meet with the primary investigator or a research assistant to complete all of the study questionnaires. Participants were told that the purpose of the study was to examine the inuence of a nutrition and exercise seminar on young mens attitudes toward healthy lifestyle behaviors. Upon completion of the baseline questionnaires, participants selected one of two seminar dates they would be able to attend. Once all volunteers had chosen a seminar date, the seminars were randomly assigned to either the hypermuscular condition, where the hypermuscular set of photographs were shown throughout a 30-min PowerPoint presentation, or to the muscular condition where the muscular set of photographs were displayed during the seminar. Reminder e-mails were sent one day prior to each seminar. The 30-min nutrition and exercise seminar entitled, Muscle Building 101, was designed to provide the men with a basic understanding of nutrition, supplement usage and resistance training. To ensure that the information given in the seminar was accurate, a professor in the area of human nutrition and metabolism was asked to design the written and oral components of the PowerPoint presentation. Specically, information was compiled on each of the

following topics: (1) muscle anatomy and physiology; (2) muscle protein regulation; (3) the role of macronutrients during resistance training; (4) supplements (i.e., creatine and b-hydroxy-methyl-butyrate); (5) resistance training frequency and intensity principles. The written information (i.e., information written on the PowerPoint slides) and verbally presented information was identical in both the muscular and hypermuscular conditions and was presented by a Ph.D. student studying in the area of human nutrition and metabolism. However, the stimuli that accompanied the written information were different. During the seminar, men in the muscular condition were exposed to the 24 muscular slides, while men in the hypermuscular condition were exposed to the 24 hypermuscular slides. Each physique photograph was presented on the screen for 2 s without any accompanying written material. Following the 2 s of exposure, written information was superimposed on the physique image, which simultaneously faded into the background. A total of 35 slides were created for each seminar, with 24 of the slides containing the combination of physique images and written information and the remainder containing written information only. Following the seminar, the BASS and DMS measures as well as a manipulation check were administered. For the manipulation check, participants indicated whether they had noticed the images throughout the seminar and provided an overall muscularity rating for the stimuli presented during the seminar, on a 10-point scale with anchors of 1 (not at all muscular), 5 (somewhat muscular) and 10 (extremely muscular). Participants then received $10 for their involvement in the study. Approximately one week following the seminar, all participants were debriefed through e-mail. Results Preliminary analyses Out of the 74 men who were recruited, 63 completed the baseline questionnaires and attended the seminar. Twenty-nine men were assigned to the hypermuscular condition, while the remaining 34 were assigned to the muscular condition. The demographic characteristics and unadjusted baseline body image measures of the 63 participants who completed the study are presented in Table 1. Chi-square analyses indicated that there were no signicant differences between the two conditions on family ethnic background ( p > .50), number of smokers ( p > .90),

K.P. Arbour, K.A. Martin Ginis / Body Image 3 (2006) 153161 Table 1 Descriptive statistics for the muscular and hypermuscular exposure conditions Characteristic Muscular condition (n = 34) M Age BMIa Caucasian (%)b Smokers (%) Weight-training (days/week)c 21.56 25.51 53.0 3.0 3.35 SD 2.18 4.06 Hypermuscular condition (n = 29) M 22.34 24.97 61.0 3.0 3.10 SD 3.44 2.76

157

dissatisfaction. Analyses revealed a positive correlation between body dissatisfaction and muscularity dissatisfaction for both the muscular (r = .73, p < .01) and hypermuscular conditions (r = .53, p < .01). Manipulation check An ANOVA indicated that participants in the hypermuscular condition perceived the images to be more muscular (M = 9.8, SD = 1.5) than participants in the muscular condition (M = 6.2, SD = 1.5), F (1,61) = 146.15, p < .001. Based on these ndings, we concluded that the manipulation was successful and it was appropriate to proceed with the hypothesis tests. Effects of exposure on body dissatisfaction

1.65

1.59

Weight-training (days/week, %) 2 29.4 35 64.7 !6 5.9 Magazine reading (%)d 0 52.9 110 47.1 >10 0 Body dissatisfactione Baseline* Post-exposure D baseline post-exposure 23.56 23.38 .18 4.68 4.91 3.00

34.5 62.0 3.4 58.6 41.4 0 20.86 20.10 .76 4.86 4.70 2.17

Muscularity dissatisfactionf Baseline 24.03 Post-exposure 24.70 D baseline .67 post-exposure

a

6.99 7.72 3.88

23.21 22.38 .83

8.08 7.78 4.47

Two people from the hypermuscular condition and one person from the muscular condition did not respond. b One person from the hypermuscular condition did not respond. c These values are similar to those reported in an ethnically diverse sample of 1138 college-aged men who, on average, reported lifting weights for 2.442.71 h/week (Suminski, Petosa, Utter, & Zhang, 2002). d Dened as the number of health and tness magazines the participant read per month. e Higher scores represent greater body dissatisfaction. f Higher scores indicate greater muscularity dissatisfaction. * p < .05.

A standard multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine whether the participants postexposure body dissatisfaction varied as a function of the exposure condition and baseline levels of body and muscularity dissatisfaction. In accordance with Tabachnick and Fidells (2001) guidelines, each predictor variable was zero-centered prior to performing the regression analysis. The rst-order predictors of baseline body dissatisfaction and muscularity dissatisfaction as well as the dummy-coded image-exposure condition (muscular = 0, hypermuscular = 1) were entered along with the Condition Body Dissatisfaction and Condition Muscularity Dissatisfaction interaction terms. Results indicated that the overall model was signicant, R2 = .80 (R2 adj :78), F (5,57) = 45.41, p < .001 (see Table 2). In partial support of our rst hypothesis, baseline body dissatisfaction was a signicant, positive predictor of postexposure body dissatisfaction (b = .67, p < .001). However, contrary to hypothesis, the Exposure Condition Body Dissatisfaction interaction was not signicant. In partial support of our second hypothesis,
Table 2 Multiple regression analysis predicting post-exposure body dissatisfaction Predictor Baseline BD Baseline MD Exposure condition Exposure condition baseline BD Exposure condition baseline MD b .67 .36 .11 .10 .22 t 7.03 3.78 1.77 1.04 2.23 p <.001** <.001** .08 .30 .03 *

weight-training frequency ( p > .80) and the number of health and tness magazines read per month ( p > .60). Univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) showed that the BASS was the only variable that signicantly differed between the two conditions, F (1,61) = 5.02, p < .03, with the hypermuscular condition reporting lower baseline body dissatisfaction (M = 20.9, SD = 4.9) than the muscular condition (M = 23.6, SD = 4.7). Separate bivariate correlations were conducted for each condition to determine the relationship between post-exposure muscularity dissatisfaction and body

Note. BD: body dissatisfaction; exposure condition: type of image participants were shown during the seminar; MD: muscularity dissatisfaction. The standardized regression coefcients (b) are shown.

158

K.P. Arbour, K.A. Martin Ginis / Body Image 3 (2006) 153161

baseline muscularity dissatisfaction was a signicant, positive predictor of post-exposure body dissatisfaction (b = .36, p < .001). Furthermore, the Exposure Condition Muscularity Dissatisfaction interaction was signicant (b = .22, p = .03). To evaluate the form of the Exposure Condition Muscularity Dissatisfaction interaction, two regression equations were calculated (one for each exposure condition), using the raw score for each predictor variable, in which post-exposure body dissatisfaction was regressed on baseline muscularity dissatisfaction, while controlling for the signicant covariate of baseline body dissatisfaction (Aiken & West, 1991). Next, as recommended by Aiken and West, post-exposure body dissatisfaction values were calculated for each regression equation using the mean baseline muscularity dissatisfaction score and scores 1 SD above and below the mean. These predicted values were then plotted for each exposure condition. As shown in Fig. 1, among men who were exposed to the muscular images, higher levels of baseline muscular-

ity dissatisfaction were associated with higher postexposure body dissatisfaction (B = .25, tslope = 3.51, p = .001). Among men who were exposed to the hypermuscular images, there was no relationship between baseline muscularity dissatisfaction and postexposure body dissatisfaction (B = .04, tslope = .77, p = .45). Effects of exposure condition on muscularity dissatisfaction A standard multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine whether the participants postexposure muscularity dissatisfaction varied as a function of the exposure condition and baseline levels of body image concerns. Similar to the previous analysis, each predictor variable was zero-centered prior to conducting the regression analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). The rst-order predictors of baseline body dissatisfaction and muscularity dissatisfaction as well as the dummy-coded image-exposure condition were entered along with the Condition Body Dissatisfaction and Condition Muscularity Dissatisfaction interaction terms. Results indicated that the overall model was signicant, R2 = .77 (R2 adj :75), F (5,57) = 38.85, p < .001. In partial support of our hypotheses, the main effects for baseline body dissatisfaction (b = .29, p < .01) and muscularity dissatisfaction (b = .79, p < .001) were signicant, indicating that higher levels of baseline body dissatisfaction and muscularity dissatisfaction were positively associated with greater post-exposure muscularity dissatisfaction. However, contrary to prediction, the interaction terms were not signicant predictors of muscularity dissatisfaction. Discussion The purpose of this experiment was to examine the main and moderating effects of body and muscularity dissatisfaction on young mens body images following exposure to muscular and hypermuscular media images. In partial support of our hypotheses, body dissatisfaction, muscularity dissatisfaction and the interaction between muscularity dissatisfaction and exposure condition were independent predictors of post-exposure body dissatisfaction. The nding of a main effect for baseline body dissatisfaction and muscularity dissatisfaction was expected, and is consistent with previous research showing that mens responses to physique images vary as a function of preexisting body image concerns (Hausenblas et al., 2002). The interaction effect was also expected, but the

Fig. 1. Plot of the interaction effect of exposure condition and baseline muscularity dissatisfaction on post-exposure body dissatisfaction. In line with Aiken and Wests (1991) standards for graphing interactions using a regression model, the unstandardized beta weights were used to plot the lines (muscular condition B = .25, hypermuscular condition B = .04). Post-exposure body dissatisfaction values were calculated for each regression equation using the mean baseline muscularity dissatisfaction score (M = 23.65) and scores 1 SD above (31.11) and below (16.19) the mean.

K.P. Arbour, K.A. Martin Ginis / Body Image 3 (2006) 153161

159

direction of the interaction was not. Contrary to our hypotheses, men with high muscularity concerns were more affected by the muscular than the hypermuscular images (see Fig. 1). Among men who viewed the muscular images, those with higher levels of baseline muscularity dissatisfaction reported greater postexposure body dissatisfaction. Among men who viewed the hypermuscular images, there was no relationship between baseline muscularity dissatisfaction and post-exposure body dissatisfaction. There are a couple of reasons why men with high levels of muscularity dissatisfaction may have experienced greater body dissatisfaction after exposure to muscular than hypermuscular images. The rst is that images of muscularity per se do not elicit body dissatisfaction, but rather, exposure to the media ideal of a muscular male physique elicits dissatisfaction. The physique images presented in the muscular image condition were representative of images depicted in popular male-audience magazines whereas the hypermuscular physique images were more reective of ideals portrayed in body-building magazines. Given that exposure to media representations of same-sex bodies affects viewers personal body ideals (Thompson & Heinberg, 1999) and that men are exposed to more muscular than hypermuscular images in the popular media (Frederick, Kessler, & Haselton, 2005), men in our study probably considered the muscular images to be more ideal. Social comparisons with the muscular images, and a perceived discrepancy between ones own body and these ideal bodies could account for the negative effects of the muscular images among men who were already dissatised with their muscularity (cf. Heinberg & Thompson, 1992; Posavac, Posavac, & Weigel, 2001). To examine whether the muscular images were considered more ideal than the hypermuscular images, a follow-up study was conducted among 27 men (M age = 21.89 2.14) who were asked to rate the 48 images in terms of desirability/attractiveness, representativeness of the male body ideal, and achievability through exercise only, using a 10-point rating scale. Separate paired samples t-tests indicated that compared to the hypermuscular images, the muscular images were perceived as more desirable/attractive (Mmuscular = 5.59 1.40, Mhypermuscular = 2.86 1.98), closer to the male ideal (Mmuscular = 5.70 1.43, Mhypermuscular = 3.12 2.12) and more achievable (Mmuscular = 8.96 .87, Mhypermuscular = 2.90 1.22). These ndings provide further support to our claim that greater social comparisons with the muscular images may explain the negative effects these images

had on low muscularity-dissatised mens body dissatisfaction. A second possibility why men with high levels of muscularity dissatisfaction experienced greater body dissatisfaction after exposure to the muscular images is that participants considered the hypermuscular images to be an unrealistic standard for social comparison. Indeed, the large discrepancy on the achievability through exercise only dimension in the follow-up study (i.e., mean difference of 6.06 between the muscular and hypermuscular images) suggests that the hypermuscular physiques were considered to be unattainable through a regular weight-training regime. Consequently, men who viewed the hypermuscular images may not have engaged in the social comparison processes that have been shown to trigger body dissatisfaction (Tiggemann & Slater, 2004). Unlike women, who show an increase in body dissatisfaction after viewing pictures of models with unrealistic and dangerously thin bodies (Groesz et al., 2002), men may reject comparisons with physiques that are perceived as unattainable (at least, without resorting to dangerous means such as steroid use). We are unaware of any studies that have compared mens and womens beliefs about the achievability of media-based body image ideals; however, magazine models and Hollywood celebrities have far less of an inuence on mens body images than womens (Garner & Kearney-Cooke, 1997). When evaluating their overall appearance, men may be more discriminating in their choice of social comparison targets than women, and more likely to consider whether a particular look is realistic and attainable before making comparisons. This is a possibility that warrants further examination. Contrary to our hypothesis, baseline measures of body dissatisfaction did not moderate the effects of the media exposure conditions. This null nding may indicate the need to assess moderating variables that correspond with the manipulated aspects of the experimental images. In situations where muscularity is the salient feature of the experimental stimuli, mens responses may be more determined by measures of their muscularity dissatisfaction than their overall body dissatisfaction. Put simply, we suspect that a mans satisfaction with those aspects of his body that are salient in experimental images (e.g., muscularity, body fatness, and overall physical appearance) will determine, at least in part, the impact of those images on his body satisfaction. With regard to the effects on muscularity dissatisfaction, regardless of which condition they were assigned to, men with greater muscularity dissatisfaction at baseline reported greater muscularity dissatisfaction

160

K.P. Arbour, K.A. Martin Ginis / Body Image 3 (2006) 153161

after the seminar.1 On the one hand, these results may suggest that exposure to any type of muscle-salient image prompts muscle dissatisfaction among men who already have negative thoughts and feelings about their musculature. On the other hand, the emphasis of the seminar muscle building could also have elicited greater muscularity concerns among men who were already predisposed to such thoughts. In order to rule out this alternative explanation, it would be necessary to replicate the experiment with a third experimental condition in which no physique images are shown during the seminar. The lack of this third control condition is a limitation of the present study. Despite this limitation, our study has made a signicant contribution to knowledge regarding the interactive effects of muscularity dissatisfaction and exposure to muscular images on male body dissatisfaction. The importance of this contribution is further underscored when considered relative to the study designs external validity. The manipulation was conducted within the context of a seminar and the physique images were presented as background images to other written and orally delivered material. Not only did the seminar represent a more realistic environment than has typically been used in media exposure studies, but we suspect that participants in our study would have been less likely to gure out the true purpose of the investigation because the images were presented with other contextual information of interest. Given that our relatively subtle manipulation produced signicant effects on body image, we expect that more blatant exposures (such as those typically used in experimental studies of media exposure) would have even stronger effects. Another important methodological innovation was the independent manipulation of muscularity. Although a couple of previous studies had shown that exposure to muscular images has a negative impact on mens body images (Leit et al., 2002; Lorenzen et al., 2004), these earlier investigations confounded manipulations of body fat and muscularity. In contrast, our experimental images differed only in terms of muscularity, thus providing insight into the independent inuence of muscularity exposure on mens body images. We

encourage further media exposure research involving independent manipulations of body fat and muscle. Given the difculty of nding photographs of men in print media that capture the spectrum of muscle and fat combinations, researchers should explore the use of specialized computer software to create images that better represent a broader range of male physiques. In a similar vein, we recognize advantages to simultaneously examining the effects of lean, muscular and hypermuscular images on mens satisfaction with their muscularity as well as their body fat. The use of a measure that assesses both muscularity and body fat constructs, such as the somatomatrix technique, would alleviate this limitation of our study. We also caution that the results pertain only to brief exposures to muscular images presented during a seminar-based setting. To determine long-term exposure effects, studies are needed that include follow-up measures of body image, perhaps using experiential sampling methods. In summary, the present study has shown the importance of body and muscularity dissatisfaction as determinants of mens responses to muscular and hypermuscular media images. The ndings also suggest that exposure to the media ideal of muscularity, rather than muscularity per se, is what elicits body dissatisfaction in men with pre-existing muscularity concerns. Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity (NASPSPA) for a student research grant, awarded to the rst author. We would also like to acknowledge Stuart Phillips and Sarah Wilkinson for their contribution to the preparation and delivery of the health seminar as well as Matt Miller and Leo Paraskevopoulos for assisting with data collection. References
Agliata, D., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (2004). The impact of media exposure on male body image. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 722. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Brown, T. A., Cash, T. F., & Mikulka, P. J. (1990). Attitudinal bodyimage assessment: Factor analysis of the Body-Self Relations Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 135144. Brownell, K. D. (1991). Personal responsibility and control over our bodies: When expectation exceeds reality. Health Psychology, 10, 303310.

1 A 2 (exposure condition) 2 (time) repeated measures ANOVA on muscularity dissatisfaction scores was conducted for men with high baseline muscularity dissatisfaction (as determined by a median split). Only the main effect for time was signicant, F (1,22) = 4.87, p = .04. Thus, regardless of which images they saw, men with higher baseline muscularity dissatisfaction experienced a signicant increase in muscularity dissatisfaction from pre- to post-seminar.

K.P. Arbour, K.A. Martin Ginis / Body Image 3 (2006) 153161 Cafri, G., & Thompson, J. K. (2004). Measuring male body image: A review of the current methodology. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 5, 1829. Cash, T. F. (2002). Cognitive-behavioral perspectives on body image. In T. F. Cash, & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 3846). New York: Guilford Press. Cash, T. F., Cash, D. F., & Butters, J. W. (1983). Mirror, mirror, on the wall. . .?: Contrast effects and self-evaluations of physical attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 351358. Cattarin, J. A., Thompson, J. K., Thomas, C., & Williams, R. (2000). Body image, mood, and televised images of attractiveness: The role of social comparison. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 220239. Frederick, D. A., Fessler, D. M. T., & Haselton, M. G. (2005). Do representations of male muscularity differ in mens and womens magazines? Body Image, 2, 8186. Garner, D., & Kearney-Cooke, A. (1997). The 1997 body image survey results. Psychology Today 30, 3036, 3840, 4244, 7576, 78, 80, 84. Groesz, L. M., Levine, M. P., & Murnen, S. K. (2002). The effects of experimental presentation of thin media images on body satisfaction: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 31, 116. Hausenblas, H. A., Janelle, C. M., Gardner, R. E., & Hagan, A. L. (2002). Effects of exposure to physique slides on the emotional responses of men and women. Sex Roles, 47, 569575. Heinberg, L. J., & Thompson, J. K. (1992). Social comparison: Gender, target importance ratings, and relation to body image disturbance. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 335344. Leit, R. A., Gray, J. L., & Pope, H. G., Jr. (2002). The medias representation of the ideal male body: A cause for muscle dysmorphia? International Journal of Eating Disorders, 31(3), 34338. Leit, R. A., Pope, H. G., Jr., & Gray, J. J. (2000). Cultural expectations of muscularity in men: The evolution of playgirl centerfolds. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 29, 9093. Lorenzen, L. A., Grieve, F. G., & Thomas, A. (2004). Exposure to muscular male models decreases mens body satisfaction. Sex Roles, 51, 743748. Martin Ginis, K. A., Eng, J. J., Arbour, K. P., Hartman, J. W., & Philips, S. M. (2005). Mind over muscle? Sex differences in the relationship between body image change and subjective and

161

objective physical changes following a 12-week strength-training program. Body Image, 2, 363372. McCreary, D. R., & Sasse, D. K. (2000). An exploration of the drive for muscularity in adolescent boys and girls. Journal of American College Health, 48, 297304. McCreary, D. R., Sasse, D. K., Saucier, D. M., & Dorsch, K. D. (2004). Measuring the drive for muscularity: Factorial validity of the drive for muscularity scale in men and women. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 5, 4958. Ogden, J., & Mundray, K. (1996). The effect of the media on body satisfaction: The role of gender and size. European Eating Disorders Review, 4, 171182. Olivardia, R., Pope, H. G., Borowiecki, J., & Cohane, G. H. (2004). Biceps and body image: The relationship between muscularity and self-esteem, depression, and eating disorder symptoms. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 5, 112120. Posavac, H. D., Posavac, S. S., & Weigel, R. G. (2001). Reducing the impact of media images on women at risk for body image disturbance: Three targeted interventions. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20, 324340. Stice, E., & Shaw, H. E. (1994). Adverse effects of the media portrayed thin-ideal on women and linkages to bulimic symptomatology. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 288 308. Suminski, R. R., Petosa, R., Utter, A. C., & Zhang, J. J. (2002). Physical activity among ethnically diverse college students. Journal of American College Health, 51, 7580. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Thompson, K. J., & Heinberg, L. J. (1999). The media s inuence on body image disturbance and eating disorders: Weve reviled them, now can we rehabilitate them? The Journal of Social Issues, 55, 339353. Thornton, B., & Maurice, J. (1997). Physique contrast effect: Adverse impact of idealized body images for women. Sex Roles, 37, 433 439. Tiggemann, M. (2002). Media inuences on body image development. In T. F. Cash, & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 9198). New York: Guilford Press. Tiggemann, M., & Slater, A. (2004). Thin ideals in music television: A source of social comparison and body dissatisfaction. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 35, 4858.