Form or function: Does focusing on body functionality protect women from body dissatisfaction when viewing media images?

Abstract

We examined whether shifting young women’s (N =322) attention toward functionality components of media-portrayed idealized images would protect against body dissatisfaction. Image type was manipulated via images of models in either an objectified body-as-object form or active body-as-process form; viewing focus was manipulated via questions about the appearance or functionality of the models. Social comparison was examined as a moderator. Negative outcomes were most pronounced within the process-related conditions (body-as-process images or functionality viewing focus) and for women who reported greater functionality comparison. Results suggest that functionality-based depictions, reflections, and comparisons may actually produce worse outcomes than those based on appearance.

Keywords

body-as-object body-as-process body functionality body satisfaction media

Introduction

Mass media can act as a prominent sociocultural pressure for women via the pervasive display of idealized images of typically airbrushed thin and attractive models (Levine and Murnen, 2009). Meta-analytic reviews suggest that such exposure has the potential to produce negative effects in viewers (e.g. Grabe et al., 2008). One emerging preventative approach attempts to shift women’s focus away from appearance-related dimensions and toward the function of their body (e.g. Alleva et al., 2014, 2015).

Body form and function

Objectification theory (Fredrickson and Roberts, 1997) and body conceptualization theory (Franzoi, 1995) have argued that women (and men) are socialized within Western cultures to view and appreciate the female body in terms of its aesthetic qualities (i.e. its form). Conversely, the male body is traditionally viewed with a focus on the active components of the body such as strength and instrumentality; that is, the focus is on what their body can do (its function; Franzoi, 1995). Accordingly, the body may be presented or viewed in two ways: either as a passive object, with a focus on the aesthetic qualities of body parts (body-as-object (BAO)), or as an active entity, with a focus on the functionality and capabilities of the whole body (body-as-process (BAP)) (Franzoi, 1995). Media research to date has predominantly used images where women are arguably presented in a BAO manner. However, these trends appear to be changing. The ideal for women is becoming increasing athletic (e.g. Homan et al., 2012; Thompson et al., 2004), with “fitspiration” images (BAP format) common in social media (Tiggemann and Zaccardo, 2015).

Researchers have begun to examine whether presenting or viewing the body with a focus on the functionality elements may ameliorate the negative effects commonly found when viewing images of idealized models. On one hand, it can be useful for women to aspire to achieve a healthy, fit, and well-functioning body through appropriate means such as eating well and exercising regularly. On the other hand, such images may simply provide another unachievable ideal (Mask et al., 2014) which women may view less critically than the more familiar thin-ideal (Tiggemann and Zaccardo, 2015). The evidence for these viewpoints across experimental and correlational research is mixed.

Within correlational research, there is consistent evidence that females report greater satisfaction, value, and investment with the functionality components of their body compared to the aesthetic components (Abbott and Barber, 2010; Franzoi, 1995; Wasylkiw and Butler, 2014). In turn, this has been related to a range of positive outcomes such as greater self-esteem (Abbott and Barber, 2010) and greater satisfaction with the process and appearance dimensions of one’s body, less appearance orientation, and greater body appreciation (Wasylkiw and Butler, 2014). However, women may still be more oriented toward aesthetic dimensions than functionality dimensions (Wasylkiw and Butler, 2014), with this greater orientation being related to poorer levels of the aforementioned variables (Abbott and Barber, 2010; Wasylkiw and Butler, 2014). Thus, correlational research indicates that a focus on the functionality of the body is associated with a range of positive outcomes.

Experimental research shows that exposure to models presented in a passive BAO (i.e. focus on aesthetic qualities) or an active BAP (i.e. focus on instrumentality and fitness of the body) manner does produce different outcomes. In males, exposure to BAP images has resulted in better self-esteem outcomes in adolescent males (Farquhar and Wasylkiw, 2007), but negative body image outcomes in adult males (Mulgrew et al., 2014). In female samples, results show that far from being helpful, BAP representations can have negative effects. Both Mulgrew and Hennes (2015) and Mask et al. (2014) found that viewing BAP images had a similar (or worse) negative effect on body and fitness satisfaction to viewing BAO images. Tiggemann and Zaccardo (2015) found that brief exposure to “fitspiration” (BAP-style) imagery resulted in poorer mood and body satisfaction compared to women who viewed travel images. Across these experimental studies, the consensus seems to be that the mere presence of a thin and attractive model is detrimental, even when presented in a fitness context where the focus is on the functionality of the body.

Thus, findings across correlational and experimental research suggest that body functionality has the potential to serve as both a protective factor and a risk factor. A further line of evidence comes from the recent work which aimed to shift women’s focus toward functionality dimensions of the body.

Manipulations of body focus

Only two papers have considered the question of whether training women to focus on the functionality components of their body can improve body image (published after our data collection). Alleva et al. (2014) found that women who wrote about the functionality of their body reported no changes to their appearance or functionality satisfaction, although writing about their appearance produced a drop in functionality satisfaction. In an expanded three-session writing task, Alleva et al. (2015) found that women with body dissatisfaction who wrote about the functionality of their body reported a range of positive outcomes: greater appearance and functionality satisfaction, greater body appreciation, and less self-objectification, compared to the control version of the program. These results suggest that reflecting on the functionality dimensions of one’s body has the potential to improve body image, although these findings are difficult to reconcile with experimental research which demonstrates negative body image outcomes after exposure for functionality-focused images. As such, more research is needed into the role of body functionality within women’s body image in combination with mechanisms which may support such protective factors.

Social comparison

Social comparison has been identified as a key process underlying media-induced body dissatisfaction (e.g. Tiggemann and Polivy, 2010). Festinger’s (1954) original theory argues that people hold an innate tendency to compare themselves to similar others. Given the often unachievable nature of models’ appearance in the media, many women will engage in upward social comparison where the model is perceived as superior in appearance, with consequences such as reduced body satisfaction (Bessenoff, 2006; Tiggemann and Polivy, 2010).

There has been some emerging discussion about the social comparison processing of BAP-style images. On one hand, BAP images may invite more holistic processing (Franzoi, 1995) that distracts viewers from making appearance comparisons (Farquhar and Wasylkiw, 2007). In addition, the lack of a uniform cultural standard for a well-functioning body (Martin and Lichtenberger, 2002) may also discourage social comparison when faced with active models. On the other hand, the increased focus on obtaining a fit and healthy body has resulted in increased pressure for women to achieve a thin, but athletic body shape (e.g. Homan et al., 2012; Lenart et al., 1995; Thompson et al., 2004). Tiggemann and Zaccardo (2015) found that state appearance comparison mediated the negative effects of exposure to “fitspiration” images on body dissatisfaction. Social comparison processes are therefore important to consider. However, measures of social comparison to date have focused on appearance-based comparison (e.g. the State Appearance Comparison Scale, Tiggemann and McGill, 2004), although clearly comparisons can occur across other dimensions as well. Here, we developed a functionality-based comparison measure analogous to the appearance-based scale.

The current study

It remains to be seen whether inducing a functionality viewing focus can result in positive outcomes when women are exposed to sociocultural representations of the idealized physique. In this study, viewing focus was manipulated via questions encouraging participants to reflect upon either the aesthetic or functionality dimensions of the model’s body. We hypothesized that women who focused on the functionality of the model’s body would report better appearance and functionality satisfaction than women who focused on the appearance elements of the model’s body. We expected that this effect would be found when viewing both BAO and BAP images but would be stronger in the BAP condition. Second, we examined the role of social comparison and predicted that (a) greater appearance or functionality social comparison would produce greater dissatisfaction, but (b) this effect would be moderated by viewing focus. Instead of serving as a protective factor, we expected that drawing attention to the functional features of the model, especially when presented in a BAP form, would magnify negative effects in women who were inclined toward engaging in functionality-based social comparisons. Similarly, negative effects were expected when viewing focus was directed toward the aesthetic features of the model, especially in the BAO condition, for women with higher levels of appearance-based social comparisons.

Method

Participants

A sample of 322 women was recruited via university emails, social media, community forums, and snowballing from a regional Australian university and the surrounding community. Participants were aged 17–30 years with a mean age of 24.07 years (standard deviation (SD) = 3.88) and an average body mass index (BMI) of 23.93 (SD = 5.50, range = 14.88–58.43). The majority of participants were in the healthy BMI range (61%; underweight = 8%, overweight = 19%, obese = 11%), and the majority of participants (92%) were Caucasian.

Materials

State appearance and functionality satisfaction

In all, 10 Likert items were used to assess participants’ pre- and post-test appearance and functionality satisfaction. Three items assessed dimensions of appearance satisfaction (overall appearance, overall weight and shape, fatness), three items assessed body functionality satisfaction (what my body can do, my physical strength, how my body can move), and four items were included as distracters. Due to the high inter-correlations between the items within each set (rs > .7), items were combined to produce an overall measure of appearance satisfaction and an overall measure of functionality satisfaction. Higher scores indicated greater satisfaction.

These items were derived from Heinberg and Thompson’s (1995) continuous visual analogue scales commonly used in media research as a brief yet sensitive measure of immediate changes to state constructs. Participants rated how they felt “right now” on a 1 (not at all) to 10 (very much) scale with only the endpoints labeled to reduce recall of prior responses. Strong test–retest reliability has been reported using similar measures (Birkeland et al., 2005). In this study, high Cronbach’s alpha scores were noted for pre-test appearance satisfaction (α = .97) and functionality satisfaction (α = .94).

Appearance and functionality comparison

An adaptation of the State Appearance Comparison Scale (Tiggemann and McGill, 2004) was used to assess state appearance–based comparisons. Two items asked participants the extent to which they thought about their general appearance (item 1) and specific areas of their body (item 2, newly created) while viewing the models, and two items asked about comparison of their appearance (item 3) and specific body parts to the model (item 4). Items were measured on a 10-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 10 (very much) with only endpoints given. An averaged composite score represents the amount of comparison to the models that were previously viewed (α = .95).

A parallel version of these items was developed to measure the amount of comparison to the physical condition of the model. Participants responded to the two items: “How much did you [item 1: think about; item 2: compare] your own physical condition (e.g. health, fitness, endurance, etc.) while viewing the models?” The response scale and scoring were the same as the original scale (α = .92).

To investigate their role as moderating variables within the analysis of variance design, the appearance and functionality comparison measures were dichotomized into high (score of 5–10) and low (score of 1–4.9) comparison groups.

Image type

Images were collected from the Internet and selected according to Farquhar and Wasylkiw’s (2007) dimensions of “level of activity” and “level of pose.” BAP images depicted models engaging in higher levels of activity demonstrating the physical capability of the body with the pose being more natural and active. Conversely, BAO images depicted models with lower level of physical activity in a highly posed stance, which elicits a focus on the appearance of the model. Both conditions depicted at least 80 percent of a front-facing thin, attractive female model who appeared to be aged 18 years and over. No advertisements were included. The eight images for the BAO condition emphasized the aesthetic qualities of the body with models posing and wearing revealing swimwear. The eight images for the BAP condition depicted models in revealing sportswear and emphasized the functional qualities of the body with models engaging in a range of physical activities such as track, push-ups, weights, and stretching while displaying strength, balance, and grace. Level of body exposure was matched by the authors. Ratings from five women from the general community showed there to be no significant differences between the image sets on the perceived attractiveness of the models (t(14) = 0.76, p > .05) or the perceived thinness of the models (t(14) = 0.11, p > .05). Both sets of images were rated as being representative of the description of BAO and BAP conditions (M for match to description for BAO = 9.27, SD = 0.28, and BAP = 8.75, SD = 0.67, on a 1–10 scale).

Viewing focus manipulation

Two sets of questions were developed to encourage participants to reflect on either the aesthetic or functionality components of the models. Participants were asked to rate either four dimensions of the model’s appearance (e.g. “This model is good looking/thin/has a well-proportioned, attractive body shape/has good body tone”) or four dimensions of the model’s physicality (e.g. “This model is fit and healthy/had good physical abilities (e.g. strength, endurance, etc)/has a well-functioning body (e.g. agile and coordinated)/is in good physical condition”). There were no participants who had consistent missing data across these questions, which was considered a crude indication of engagement with the task. All participants in both conditions also rated two distractor items concerning the effectiveness of the image in advertising campaigns, consistent with the cover story. Each item was responded to on a 10-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 10 ( strongly agree ) with only the endpoints labeled.

Demographic information

Participants self-reported on demographic factors (age, height, weight, ethnicity).

Memory check

A single digit number was incorporated into the slideshow of images to check attention. Participants who incorrectly recalled this number were deleted (N = 15). Participants were also asked to describe the perceived purpose of the study, but none of the responses showed full awareness.

Procedure

Ethics approval was granted by the institution of the first author (K.E.M.). Women aged 17–30 years were invited to participate in a study examining thoughts about health, fitness, and fashion magazines. Participants first completed the demographic questions and pre-test state measures. The online survey program (SurveyMonkey) then randomly allocated participants to view one type of image set (BAO or BAP) under one type of viewing focus (aesthetic-focused or functionality-focused). Participants were asked to spend about 30 seconds per image and question set. During this time, they were asked to consider how the image could be used across a range of product types in health, fitness, and fashion magazines. The memory check question occurred at the completion of the image/question set, followed by the post-test state measures, appearance and functionality comparison, and debriefing statement. Total participation time was approximately 15 minutes.

Results

Preliminary analyses

The four experimental groups did not differ on age, BMI, pre-test appearance satisfaction, or pre-test function satisfaction, suggesting successful random allocation to conditions. Women reported significantly lower pre-test state satisfaction with the appearance of their body (M = 5.01, SD = 2.47), t(318) = 4.80, p < .001, than the functionality of their body (M = 5.47, SD = 2.22).

Image type and viewing focus

Descriptive statistics can found in Table 1. A 2 (image type: BAO vs BAP) × 2 (viewing focus: aesthetic vs functionality) multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted with post-test appearance satisfaction and functionality satisfaction as the multiple dependent variables. The pre-test satisfaction items were included as covariates. Effect sizes (f) were calculated using G*Power (Faul et al., 2007) which gives cutoffs for small (.10), medium (.25), and large (.40) effect sizes. Post hoc power analyses indicate that the sample size of 323 was sufficient (Faul et al., 2007).

Table 1.

Covariate-adjusted post-test mean (standard error) for image type (body-as-object, body-as-process) and viewing focus (appearance-focused or functionality-focused) across outcome measures.

	BAO images		BAP images
	Aesthetic-focused	Function-focused	Aesthetic-focused	Function-focused
Appearance satisfaction	4.87 (0.12)	4.79 (0.16)	4.62 (0.15)	4.60 (0.10)
Functionality satisfaction	5.55 (0.12)	5.13 (0.13)	5.11 (0.12)	4.72 (0.18)

BAO: body-as-object; BAP: body-as-process.

The main effect of image type (F(2, 306) = 5.91, p = .003, f = .19) was significant across both post-test measures of appearance (F(1, 307) = 3.82, p = .04, f = .11) and functionality satisfaction (F(1, 307) = 14.10, p = .001, f = .19). Women who viewed BAP images reported poorer post-test appearance satisfaction (M = 4.61, standard error (SE) = 0.07) and poorer functionality satisfaction (M = 4.92, SE = 0.08) compared to women who viewed the BAO images (M_Appearance = 4.83, SE = 0.07; M_{Functionality} = 5.34, SE = 0.09). The main effect of viewing focus (F(2, 306) = 6.44, p = 002, f = .20) was not significant for the outcome of appearance satisfaction (F(1, 307) = 0.19, p > .05), but was significant for post-test functionality satisfaction (F(1, 307) = 10.47, p = .001, f = .18). Compared to women who answered questions about the model’s appearance (M = 5.33, SE = 0.08), women who answered questions about the model’s functionality reported significantly lower levels of satisfaction with their own body’s functionality (M = 4.93, SE = 0.08) The two-way interaction was not significant (F(2, 306) = 0.96, p > .05).

Appearance comparison and functionality comparison as moderators

Dichotomized appearance and functionality comparison were added to the above 2 × 2 analyses to examine possible moderation. The high (appearance M = 7.41, SD = 1.65; functionality M = 7.38, SD = 1.13) and low (appearance M = 2.59, SD = 1.22; functionality M = 2.30, SD = 1.13) groups were significantly different from each other and all distributions approximated normal.

Appearance comparison did not significantly moderate any of the relationships between image type and viewing focus (all ps > .05). However, it did emerge as a significant main effect (F(2, 297) = 10.90, p < .001, f = .27) for both post-test appearance satisfaction (F(1, 298) = 20.20, p < .001, f = .25) and functionality satisfaction (F(1, 298) = 12.29, p = .001, f = .20). Compared to women who reported engaging in less appearance-based comparison to the models, the higher comparison group reported poorer appearance satisfaction (M_high = 4.47, SE = 0.08; M_low = 4.99, SE = 0.07) and poorer post-test functionality satisfaction (M_high = 4.93, SE = 0.09; M_low = 5.37, SE = 0.08).

Functionality comparison emerged as a significant moderator for several of the effects. In particular, there was a significant two-way interaction (see Figure 1) between functionality comparison and image type, F(2, 295) = 3.61, p = .03, f = .16, on functionality satisfaction, F(1, 296) = 4.27, p = .04, f = .12 (but not appearance satisfaction, F(1, 296) < 1). To follow up this interaction, the difference between women who reported high and low levels of functionality-based comparison was compared for each image type. After viewing the BAO images, there was no difference between the high (M = 5.23, SE = 0.12) and low (M = 5.28, SE = 0.13) functionality comparison groups on their functionality satisfaction, F(1, 146) = 0.68, p > .05. However, within the BAP condition, the women who reported engaging in more functionality comparison reported poorer satisfaction with the function of their body (M = 4.77, SE = 0.11) than women who reported lower levels of functionality-based comparison (M = 5.34, SE = 0.13), F(1, 153) = 10.39, p = .001, f = .26.

Figure 1.

Significant moderation by functionality comparison for the effects of (a) viewing focus on appearance satisfaction and (b) image type (body-as-object (BAO) vs body-as-process (BAP)) on functionality satisfaction. Y-axis has restricted range to better show magnitude of difference. Higher scores indicate greater satisfaction.

The two-way interaction of functionality comparison and viewing focus was also significant, F(2, 295) = 3.94, p = .02, f = .14, for post-test appearance satisfaction (F(1, 296) = 4.69, p = .03, f = .12), but not functionality satisfaction (F(1, 296) < 1). This effect was followed up by comparing the differences between women who reported high and low levels of functionality-based comparison for each of the viewing focus conditions. When women were asked to reflect on the appearance of the models, the women who engaged in more functionality-based comparisons reported lower appearance satisfaction (M = 4.67, SE = 0.10) than women who engaged in less functionality-based comparisons (M = 5.34, SE = 0.10), F(1, 152) = 18.96, p < .001, f = .35. In the condition where women were asked to reflect on the functionality dimension of the model’s body, there was no difference between the high (M = 4.52, SE = 0.13) and low (M = 4.60, SE = 0.15) functionality comparers on their post-test appearance satisfaction, F(1, 152) = 0.16, p > 05, f = .003. In addition to the two-way moderations, functionality comparison also had a significant main effect (F(2, 295) = 6.29, p = .002, f = .20) for both appearance satisfaction (F(1, 296) = 12.56, p = .001, f = .20) and functionality satisfaction (F(1, 296) = 4.73, p = .03, f = .12). Compared to women who were low on functionality comparison, those who made higher levels of functionality-based comparisons reported lower appearance satisfaction (M_high = 4.56, SE = 0.07; M_low = 4.96, SE = 0.08) and lower functionality satisfaction (M_high = 5.03, SE = 0.08; M_low = 5.31, SE = 0.09).

Discussion

The burgeoning research into the construct of body functionality has clearly established it as a variable of importance, despite the debate around how and when it can serve as a protective factor. We tested whether inducing a functionality-based focus when viewing images of idealized models presented in either a BAO or BAP stance would serve as a protective factor against appearance and functionality dissatisfaction in young adult women. Our results showed that this anticipated protective process did not occur, but rather resulted in worse outcomes. Being exposed to BAP images or reflecting upon the functionality components of a model’s body resulted in reduced satisfaction with one’s own appearance or functionality. Higher levels of comparison, both appearance- and functionality-based, appear to magnify these effects generally. However, functionality-based comparisons in particular appear to moderate how women view idealized images. Women who reported engaging in greater functionality-based comparisons reported poorer functionality satisfaction when exposed to BAP images and lower appearance satisfaction when reflecting on a model’s appearance. In short, functionality-based images and reflections may be detrimental to women’s body image.

Our findings are generally consistent with the small amount of past research that has documented negative body image outcomes associated with viewing BAP-style images in women (Mask et al., 2014; Mulgrew and Hennes, 2015; Tiggemann and Zaccardo, 2015). Our findings extend this line of research by showing that negative effects are not just found after passively viewing BAP images and demonstrate that a functionality focus does not serve a protective function in this context. The importance of social comparison was reaffirmed, and we offer a measure of functionality-based social comparison which appears to serve as a further risk factor for media-induced body dissatisfaction.

There are a number of potential reasons for our unexpected results. Perhaps, a functionality focus does not diminish the focus on appearance elements; that is, women may find it difficult to disentangle the function of the body from its form. This “blend between function and form” (Abbott and Barber, 2011: 334) is supported by the strong associations between appearance and functionality measures and descriptions found here and by others (e.g. Daniels, 2009; Wasylkiw and Butler, 2014) and the similar level of negative outcomes reported in experiments which have directly compared BAO and BAP images (Mask et al., 2014; Mulgrew and Hennes, 2015). Young women may equate a well-functioning and healthy body with one that looks thin and attractive. Qualitative research that asks women to reflect on these dimensions while viewing BAO and BAP images may help to better understand this relationship.

A second point concerns the idealized nature of both sets of images. Our BAP images showed women displaying a range of functionality dimensions, but ultimately contained models who were rated as highly attractive. Thus, the BAP images may have presented an “active” alternative to the “thin-ideal,” but an at least equally unattainable one. Focusing on functionality elements may highlight yet another sociocultural ideal that is difficult to achieve, rather than serving to shift the focus toward the competence of the body (Mask et al., 2014). Although BAP images and functionality focus might inspire women to pursue a healthy lifestyle, our results suggest that they may simply provide an alternative, and possibly more insidious, standard for women. Women may view such images through a less critical lens than traditional thin-ideal images (Tiggemann and Zaccardo, 2015). Finally, we used still images where fitness is difficult to assess other than through visual means; video footage of women actually displaying their physical competence may be a better source of stimuli. For example, Sport’s England “This girl can” campaign shows footage of non-idealized women of various ages, shapes, and ethnicities in more natural exercise settings (e.g. the women are sweating, have red faces, and have body parts wobbling as they exercise) which may serve as a better representation of BAP. Future research could compare these more realistic depictions with the idealized versions of BAP images.

Finally, although our questions prompted a reflection on specific functionality dimensions of the model’s body (i.e. her fitness, physical condition, strength, endurance), we may also have triggered an outsider’s viewing perspective, the hallmark of self-objectification (Fredrickson and Roberts, 1997). This suggestion may help reconcile the contradictory correlational and experimental research. It is possible that reflecting on one’s own functionality is associated with positive outcomes, but reflecting upon another’s functionality (particularly if that is an attractive other) triggers an objectification and/or comparison process. That is, manipulations around image type and viewing focus may successfully shift the viewer’s focus, but such a shift does not necessarily translate into more positive self-evaluations.

Limitations and directions for future research

Our findings should be viewed within the context of the following limitations. First, we only considered state social comparison, but future research could examine both upward and downward comparisons (e.g. Tiggemann and Polivy, 2010). Research has shown that women tend to use harsh and self-critical social comparison on appearance dimensions compared to men who are less critical and more self-hopeful (Franzoi et al., 2012). However, these gender differences were not found for comparisons on physical abilities dimensions. For women, greater body esteem was related to higher beliefs that physical ability perfection was attainable, and therefore, future research would benefit from including a more nuanced measure of social comparison.

Second, future measures of body functionality could employ a multidimensional approach which considers the inter-relationship with appearance satisfaction. For example, Wasylkiw and Butler (2014) found a strong positive relationship between appearance and functionality satisfaction but a weak negative relationship between thinking about appearance and thinking about functionality elements of the body. Future research is needed into the various dimensions of body functionality, such as satisfaction, orientation, value, and investment, similar to what has been done in the Embodied Image Scale developed for adolescents (Abbott and Barber, 2010). Our viewing focus questions were derived from the BAO and BAP descriptions in relevant literature (Farquhar and Wasylkiw, 2007; Franzoi, 1995; Mask et al., 2014; Mulgrew et al., 2014; Mulgrew and Hennes, 2015); however, we acknowledge that these questions have not been previously tested. Post hoc data collection from a convenience sample of 10 psychology staff and students (including three who have published/worked in the field of conceptualization) suggested that the items were representative of the core theoretical dimension. There was good consistency in terms of how respondents rated the items as eliciting either a BAO or BAP viewing focus. Variability was noted for only two questions. The question regarding body tone was seen as potentially drawing attention to both BAO and BAP domains, but most (70%) rated it as a BAO dimension. Likewise for the question regarding physical condition, there was some indication that it may point to both aesthetic and function elements, but again, the majority of respondents (N = 70%) indicated that it reflected BAP. Further development of these viewing focus questions would be useful.

Third, ratings of objectification were not gathered. It may be that the BAP images were also considered to be objectifying, which in turn triggered the negative outcomes. Furthermore, we only used images of thin and attractive models. Future research could consider additional control conditions such as models who are larger in body size and/or presented in less idealized conditions. Images of peers could also be included, based on research which has shown that social comparison can occur more often to peers rather than models (e.g. Franzoi and Klaiver, 2007). We limited our analyses to social comparison; however, it is likely that other vulnerability factors (e.g. internalization, Yamamiya et al., 2005) and protective factors (e.g. body appreciation, Halliwell, 2013) are important. Finally, our sample was homogeneous (primarily educated, Caucasian, healthy BMI), and results should be replicated in more diverse samples.

Implications and conclusions

Our findings provide a useful addition to the literature by showing that depiction of, and attention toward, models engaged in more active pursuits is associated with appearance and functionality dissatisfaction. These findings, in combination with the existing literature, do present challenges to the idea that encouraging women to focus on functionality, irrespective of context, may produce better body image outcomes. This is a different issue from messages that encourage women to lead more active lifestyles, as there is a strong research base for the benefits of exercise on body image (Hausenblas and Fallon, 2006) and emerging research on the benefits of practices such as yoga in reducing self-objectification (Daubenmier, 2005). A greater understanding of the reasons for exercise engagement can have implications for how public health messages are conveyed (e.g. Cornelis et al., 2014). Correlational research does consistently show that placing greater value, investment, or focus on the functionality components of the body does result in a range of positive body image outcomes (e.g. Wasylkiw and Butler, 2014). However, these benefits seem to break down when women are exposed to images of idealized models displaying physical competence. Future research should continue to explore ways in which to encourage women to focus less on negative appearance evaluations and more on positive functionality evaluations (e.g. Alleva et al., 2015), with the caveat that appearance focus is not always negative and, conversely, that functionality focus is not always positive. More research is needed into the conditions under which a body functionality focus is adaptive and the ways in which to encourage this process.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Elsa Goninon and Sinead Anderson who contributed to the literature review and preparation of the paper and to Andrew Allen who assisted with recruitment and data collation.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Abbott

Barber

(2010) Embodied image: Gender differences in functional and aesthetic body image among Australian adolescents. Body Image 7: 22–31.

Abbott

Barber

(2011) Differences in functional and aesthetic body image between sedentary girls and girls involved in sports and physical activity: Does sport type make a difference? Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12: 333–342.

Alleva

Martijn

Jansen

et al . (2014) Body language: Affecting body satisfaction by describing the body in functionality terms. Psychology of Women Quarterly 38(2): 181–196.

Alleva

Martijn

Van Breukelen

GJP

et al . (2015) Expand your horizon: A programme that improves body image and reduces self-objectification by training women to focus on body functionality. Body Image 15: 81–89.

Bessenoff

(2006) Can the media affect us? Social comparison, self-discrepancy, and the thin ideal. Psychology of Women Quarterly 30: 239–251.

Birkeland

Thompson

Herbozo

et al . (2005) Media exposure, mood, and body image dissatisfaction: An experimental test of person versus product priming. Body Image 2: 53–61.

Cornelis

Cauberghe

De Pelsmacker

(2014) Being healthy or looking good? The effectiveness of health versus appearance-focused arguments in two-sided messages. Journal of Health Psychology 19: 1132–1142.

Daniels

(2009) Sex objects, athletes, and sexy athletes: How media representation can impact adolescent girls and college women. Journal of Adolescent Research 24: 399–422.

Daubenmier

(2005) The relationship of yoga, body awareness, and body responsiveness to self-objectification and disordered eating. Psychology of Women Quarterly 29: 207–219.

10.

Farquhar

Wasylkiw

(2007) Media images of men: Trends and consequences of body conceptualization. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 8: 145–160.

11.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

et al . (2007) G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods 39(2): 175–191.

12.

Festinger

(1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations 7: 117–140.

13.

Franzoi

(1995) The body-as-object versus the body-as-process: Gender differences and gender consideration. Sex Roles 33: 417–437.

14.

Franzoi

Klaiber

(2007) Body use and reference group impact: With whom do we compare our bodies? Sex Roles 56: 205–214.

15.

Franzoi

Vasquez

Sparapani

et al . (2012) Exploring body comparison tendencies women are self-critical whereas men are self-hopeful. Psychology of Women Quarterly 36: 99–109.

16.

Fredrickson

Roberts

(1997) Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experienced and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly 21: 173–206.

17.

Grabe

Ward

Hyde

(2008) The role of the media in body image concerns among women: A meta-analysis of experimental and correlational studies. Psychological Bulletin 134: 460–476.

18.

Halliwell

(2013) The impact of thin idealized media images on body satisfaction: Does body appreciation protect women from negative effects? Body Image 10: 509–514.

19.

Hausenblas

Fallon

(2006) Exercise and body image: A meta-analysis. Psychology & Health 21: 33–47.

20.

Heinberg

Thompson

(1995) Body image and televised images of thinness and attractiveness: A controlled laboratory investigation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 14: 325–338.

21.

Homan

McHugh

Wells

et al . (2012) The effect of viewing ultra-fit images on college women’s body dissatisfaction. Body Image 9: 50–56.

22.

Lenart

Goldberg

Bailey

et al . (1995) Current and ideal physique choices in exercising and nonexercising college women from a pilot athletic image scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills 81: 831–848.

23.

Levine

Murnen

(2009) “Everybody knows that mass media are/are not [pick one] a cause of eating disorders”: A critical review of evidence for a causal link between media, negative body image, and disordered eating in females. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 28: 9–42.

24.

Martin

Lichtenberger

(2002) Fitness enhancement and changes in body image. In: Cash

Pruzinsky

(eds) Body Image: A Handbook of Theory, Research, and Clinical Practice. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 414–421.

25.

Mask

Blanchard

Baker

(2014) Do portrayals of women in action convey another ideal that women with little self-determination feel obligated to live up to? Viewing effects on body image evaluations and eating behaviors. Appetite 83: 277–286.

26.

Mulgrew

Hennes

(2015) The effect of functionality- and aesthetic-focused images on Australian women’s body satisfaction. Sex Roles 72: 127–139.

27.

Mulgrew

Johnson

Lane

et al . (2014) The effect of aesthetic versus process images on men’s body satisfaction. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 15: 452–459.

28.

Thompson

van den Berg

Roehrig

et al . (2004) The sociocultural attitudes towards appearance scale-3 (SATAQ-3): Development and validation. International Journal of Eating Disorders 35(3): 293–304.

29.

Tiggemann

McGill

(2004) The role of social comparison in the effect of magazine advertisements on women’s mood and body dissatisfaction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 23(1): 23–44.

30.

Tiggemann

Polivy

(2010) Upward and downward: Social comparison processing of thin idealized media images. Psychology of Women Quarterly 34(3): 356–364.

31.

Tiggemann

Zaccardo

(2015) “Exercise to be fit, not skinny”: The effect of fitspiration imagery on women’s body image. Body Image 15: 61–67.

32.

Wasylkiw

Butler

(2014) Body talk among undergraduate women: Why conversations about exercise and weight loss differentially predict body appreciation. Journal of Health Psychology 19(8): 1013–1024.

33.

Yamamiya

Cash

Melnyk

et al . (2005) Women’s exposure to thin-and-beautiful media images: Body image effects of media-ideal internalization and impact-reduction interventions. Body Image 2: 74–80.