Intercultural insights on the impact of different non-idealized models on men’s body image and advertising perceptions

Abstract

This experiment with 363 Irish and Flemish men aged 19 to 30 years (M = 23.56, SD = 2.36) investigated exposure to different male model ads (i.e. muscular, slim, plus-size, overall diversity, and no models) on well-being (i.e. body image, low body fat and muscularity attitudes, self-objectification, and self-esteem) and advertising outcomes (i.e. ad attitudes, brand attitudes, and purchase intent). Moderation effects of country and masculinity (i.e. dominance, winning) were investigated. The diversity condition generated more positive effects for low body fat attitudes than the muscular, slim, and no model conditions. Yet, no differences appeared for this outcome between the diversity and plus-size condition. No effects for the other well-being and advertising variables were found. Moderation analyses revealed higher purchase intent in the slim condition for men high in dominance. No effects were found for country and winning. Findings suggest that non-idealized models have protective effects for some men.

Keywords

body image cross-cultural masculinity non-idealized male models similarity

Few studies have investigated how men respond to non-idealized models. Moreover, most studies focus on only one type of non-idealized male model (e.g. Ogden and Mundray, 1996), that is they either study slim or plus-size models but rarely consider whether these distinct body types have different effects. Given observed negative effects of the muscular ideal (e.g. Baker et al., 2019) and men’s increasing levels of body dissatisfaction (Dakanalis et al., 2015), more nuanced knowledge on how diverse imagery could improve men’s body image is required. Moreover, if men resonate with the non-idealized imagery more, advertisements (ads) may have more persuasive power (Diedrichs and Lee, 2010), which might encourage advertisers to include such models more often. Therefore, the first aim of this study is to investigate whether different types of models (i.e. muscular, slim, plus-size, and overall diversity) have different effects on men’s well-being and advertising perceptions.

Additionally, little is known about the societal or cultural factors (i.e. masculinity) influencing the effects of non-idealized models. Masculinity, which refers to a set of attributes linked to the male gender role (e.g. drive to win, being dominant), has been found to negatively impact men’s muscularity oriented body image concerns (Murray and Touyz, 2012). Within this paper, masculinity was operationalized at both cultural and individual levels. On a cultural level, Hofstede (2001) has indicated that masculine cultures heavily value success. Such cultures may emphasize attainment of muscular ideals and be less open to other body standards. Therefore, using Hofstede’s categorization, this study compared a country with a masculine culture, that is, Ireland, to a country with a feminine culture, that is, Belgium, particularly Flanders. On an individual level, men might differ in their endorsement of traditional masculine norms. Highly masculine men strongly endorse the muscular ideal (Swami et al., 2013), which might make them less open to non-idealized models.

Size diversity in male advertising

Idealized male models, characterized by a mesomorphic body shape with defined muscles (Stanford and Mccabe, 2002), are typically used in current ads (Camerino et al., 2020) because they are thought to increase revenues (i.e. the “attractiveness sells” argument; Till and Busler, 2000). Yet, muscular ideals negatively affect men’s body image outcomes such as self-objectification (i.e. valuing physical appearance over physical competence; Baker et al., 2019; Fredrickson et al., 1998), and muscle dysmorphia (i.e. heightened concern that one is insufficiently muscular; Tod et al., 2016). The muscular ideal also negatively affects other well-being outcomes, especially self-esteem (Breslow et al., 2020). Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) has been proposed to explain these adverse effects. Comparison can lead to assimilation (i.e. similarity to the comparison standard) or contrast (i.e. dissimilarity to the comparison standard; Selective Accessibility Model (SAM); Mussweiler, 2003). Contrastive upward body comparisons highlight discrepancies between one’s actual and desired body, leading to dissatisfaction, however, assimilative upward body comparisons highlight similarities between one’s actual and desired body, yielding esteem enhancing effects. Because advertising models are highly idealized, generally upward contrastive comparisons are made (i.e. the model’s body is viewed as superior), which lead to negative outcomes (Myers and Crowther, 2009).

As a response, advertisers have started to use non-idealized models which can either have an ectomorphic (i.e. slim to average-size, difficulty to build muscles) or an endomorphic body shape (i.e. large, tendency to store body fat; Diedrichs and Lee, 2010). Such models are likely to trigger upward assimilative comparisons because they are aesthetically pleasing models (i.e. upward comparison) but also have a body similar to that of the average man (i.e. assimilation; Lou and Tse, 2020). Ogden and Mundray (1996) report that men’s body satisfaction improved after viewing plus-size models compared to muscular models. Similarly, average-size models enhanced men’s feelings of physical attractiveness, muscle satisfaction, and reduced feelings of depression (Agliata and Tantleff-Dunn, 2004; Hargreaves and Tiggemann, 2009). Research among women has also noted that so-called “overall diversity” campaigns are becoming more and more popular (Betz and Ramsey, 2017) in which a variety of body types are all displayed at once. Although studies among men are scarce, Lorenzen et al. (2004) studied different non-idealized male body shapes (i.e. “thin,” “normal weight,” and “slightly obese” models) and found that the muscular images caused a drop in men’s body satisfaction while the non-idealized images did not. Additionally, non-idealized models have been noted to improve general well-being and advertising effectiveness. Loken and Peck (2005), although a study among women, found that non-idealized models generated higher self-esteem. Research among men adds that such models are rated as equally effective in terms of advertising attitudes and purchase intent as idealized models (Diedrichs and Lee, 2010), thereby questioning the “attractiveness sells” argument.

Different types of non-idealized models

Non-idealized models thus seem to have protective effects. However, most of the studies mentioned above investigate one type of non-idealized model by comparing either a slim, plus-size, or overall diversity condition to the muscular ideal. It is unclear whether these non-idealized models exert differential effects for well-being and advertising outcomes. Literature on stigmatization and social comparison suggest that men could respond differentially to these distinct non-idealized models.

For example, although both a slim and a plus-size body shape are considered to be non-ideal for men (Diedrichs and Lee, 2010), being in a larger body is more heavily stigmatized (i.e. weight stigmatization) than simply being skinny or the inability to build muscles (Brochu and Morrison, 2007). Slim men are still perceived as healthy, while plus-size individuals are assumed to have an unhealthy lifestyle, which is often seen as an indicator of personal shortcomings (e.g. lack of discipline or laziness; Klaczynski et al., 2004). Research found that men hold greater negativity toward overweight individuals than average-weight individuals (Brochu and Morrison, 2007). It is unclear whether weight stigmatization occurs when viewing non-idealized models. Only one study has investigated the effects of both slim and large models among men (Diedrichs and Lee, 2010). While they compared the slim and large models to a muscular model, they did not compare these different non-idealized conditions to one another.

Another reason why men may differentially respond to plus-size or slim male models, may be the similarity of their own body composition relative to the comparison target. Scholars researching the Health At Every Size (HAES) principle have indicated that although ads displaying one type of non-idealized body size mean to do good, they still promote a certain type of body (Webb et al., 2017). Considering the SAM (Mussweiler, 2003), presenting only one type of non-idealized body shape might hinder some men to properly assimilate because they still have a different body size than the displayed model (e.g. a plus-size man is likely to feel dissimilar to a slim model). An overall diversity campaign including different body shapes, is likely to appeal to a wider audience as more men can relate or assimilate to these models, and experience positive self-evaluations. Again, it is unclear whether an overall diversity ad would generate better outcomes than an ad displaying a plus-size or slim model only. Only one study investigated thin, normal weight, and “obese” models all together among men (Lorenzen et al., 2004). However, Lorenzen et al. (2004) collapsed all these different models into one condition and compared it to a muscular model ad, therefore it is unclear whether a diversity condition has protective effects above and beyond plus-size or slim model conditions.

Overall, while literature hints at the importance of distinguishing between different types of non-idealized model ads, research actually comparing these different body types is lacking. As such, this is one of the first studies that will include these three types of non-idealized body shapes and not only compare them to the typical muscular body, but also to one another. In line with previous research (e.g. Halliwell and Dittmar, 2004), a no model condition was also added. Moreover, current studies tend to focus on the broad body image variables only (e.g. body satisfaction, Ogden and Mundray, 1996; overall body image, Diedrichs and Lee, 2010). In doing so, they fail to account for more specific outcomes, such as attitudes on low body fat or muscularity, which align better with the characteristics of the male body ideal of leanness and muscularity. Therefore, both general body image outcomes (i.e. body image state levels and self-objectification), as well as specific body image outcomes (i.e. attitudes on fat and muscularity) will be included. Also well-being outcomes that have been linked to body image, such as self-esteem (Lowery et al., 2005), might give broader insights. As such, we propose the following research question:

RQ1.1: What effects do ads with muscular models versus slim models versus plus-size models versus overall diversity versus no models have on (a) state body image, (b) body fat attitudes, (c) muscularity attitudes, (d) self-objectification, and (e) self-esteem?

Additionally, most studies among men overlook advertising effectiveness variables (for an exception see Diedrichs and Lee, 2010), while including them might encourage marketers to use more diverse imagery. Therefore, advertising variables will also be investigated:

RQ1.2: What effects do ads with muscular models versus slim models versus plus-size models versus overall diversity versus no models have on (a) ad attitudes, (b) brand attitudes, and (c) purchase intention?

To gain a comprehensive understanding of these effects, the social and cultural context in which the ad is viewed needs to be taken into account. Men’s desire to be muscular is shaped by male gender role norms (Mahalik et al., 2003). Being muscular is one of the most important symbols of traditional hegemonic masculinity (Calogero and Thompson, 2010). Masculinity can thus be expected to determine men’s compliance to the muscular ideal and might influence how they react to non-idealized models. Masculinity has been operationalized at a cultural (assessed by country) and personal (assessed by endorsement of masculine norms) level.

Non-idealized models and masculinity on a cultural level

Masculine cultures are characterized by achievement and traditional gender roles. It expects men to be focused on success, by for example attaining certain social ideals, while women should be more nurturing (Hofstede, 2001). A typical way for men to disseminate success is by being muscular (Grogan and Richards, 2002). As such, men born into a highly masculine culture might be more susceptible to internalizing the muscular body ideal (Gattario et al., 2015). Moreover, masculine cultures often hold on to more traditional ideas (Hofstede, 2001), which might make them less open to more progressive beliefs, like body diversity.

This study focused on two countries hypothesized by Hofstede Insights to exhibit different levels of cultural masculinity: Belgium, specifically the Northern region Flanders (lower masculinity level) and Ireland (higher masculinity level). Although research is scarce, several studies seem to confirm that Irish men are less progressive when it comes to body standards than Flemish men. A study from O’Beaglaoich et al. (2015) found that boys already recognize the importance of complying to Irish hegemonic masculinity by investing in their physical appearance. Ryan and Morrison’s (2009) study add that Irish men notice that media influence the importance they attach to having a muscular physique. Belgian research on the other hand, investigating Flemish adolescents report that boys acknowledged several elements of a positive body image, such as body self-care (Maes et al., 2021). One study of Stavrova et al. (2012) comparing Flemish to Irish adults also found that Flemish people are less likely to endorse traditional gender norms than Irish individuals. These results might hint that Flemish men experience less cultural pressure to attain the muscular ideal to fulfil gender role norms than Irish men. Moreover, progressive ideas on gender norms help consumers react more positively to nontraditional models (Pounders and Mabry-Flynn, 2019).

Considering these cultural differences regarding body standards, Irish men may experience less of a protective effect from non-idealized models than Flemish men. Research comparing Irish men to Flemish men on their reactions to non-idealized models is lacking though. Such knowledge seems important since the effects of non-idealized models depend on culture (Choi, 2016):

RQ2.1: Do ads with muscular models versus slim models versus plus-size models versus overall diversity versus no models have different effects on (a) state body image, (b) body fat attitudes, (c) muscularity attitudes, (d) self-objectification, and (e) self-esteem for Flemish men compared to Irish men?

RQ2.2: Do ads with muscular models versus slim models versus plus-size models versus overall diversity versus no models have different effects on (a) ad attitudes, (b) brand attitudes, and (c) purchase intention for Flemish men compared to Irish men?

Non-idealized models and masculinity on an individual level

It is also important to look at individual differences regarding masculinity since not everyone fully internalizes the values of one’s culture. Possessing high levels of masculine attributes, have been linked to men’s drive for muscularity (Murray and Touyz, 2012). Within the context of non-idealized models, especially the attributes of dominance and winning are of interest. A muscular body is an important symbol of masculinity because muscles communicate dominance. Men who are very dominant tend to place a lot of value on being muscular (Swami et al., 2013) which may make them less open to non-idealized models. Also, men who are competitive, might strive to achieve body goals to attain greater status and success (Mahalik et al., 2003). Clay and Brickell (2021) add that non-idealized bodies can be seen as a threat to one’s masculinity. Particularly, because body image issues are sometimes still perceived as a feminine concern or an issue men are not supposed to talk about (Hargreaves and Tiggemann, 2006). Although research thus seems to indicate that masculinity affects how men respond to non-idealized model campaigns, more in-depth knowledge is needed. Since masculine attributes like dominance and winning have not been explored extensively in relation to the effects of different non-idealized models, we sought to investigate the following research questions:

RQ3.1: Do ads with muscular models versus slim models versus plus-size models versus overall diversity versus no models have different effects on (a) state body image, (b) body fat attitudes, (c) muscularity attitudes, (d) self-objectification, and (e) self-esteem for men who score low on dominance compared to men who score high on dominance?

RQ3.2: Do ads with muscular models versus slim models versus plus-size models versus overall diversity versus no models have different effects on (a) ad attitudes, (b) brand attitudes, and (c) purchase intention for men who score low on dominance compared to men who score high on dominance?

RQ4.1: Do ads with muscular models versus slim models versus plus-size models versus overall diversity versus no models have different effects on (a) state body image, (b) body fat attitudes, (c) muscularity attitudes, (d) self-objectification, and (e) self-esteem for men who score low on winning compared to men who score high on winning?

RQ4.2: Do ads with muscular models versus slim models versus plus-size models versus overall diversity versus no models have different effects on (a) ad attitudes, (b) brand attitudes, and (c) purchase intention for men who score low on winning compared to men who score high on winning?

See Figure 1 for an overview of the theoretical model.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model of the effects of different types of models on well-being and advertising outcomes while accounting for masculinity on a cultural and individual level.

Method

Data collection and participants

Ethical approval was received from the Ethics Committees of the host Universities KU Leuven and Trinity College Dublin. A pre-registration¹ was submitted on OSF and all materials and analyses can be accessed in the accompanying OSF project. For the Irish questionnaire, the original items were used. For the Dutch questionnaire, the items were translated and the wording aligned across the two questionnaires. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, participants were recruited online.² Although a convenience sample was used, efforts were made for an adequate distribution regarding socio-demographics. Reward cards were raffled as an incentive.

A total of 363 men³ (53.4% Irish and 46.6% Flemish) aged 19 to 30 years (M = 23.56, SD = 2.36) participated. Approximately half were college students (58.1%), half were employed (39.1%) or had another status (2.8%). Education level was distributed as follows: 18.9% basic education, 15.4% higher professional education, and 65.7% higher academic education. Most participants identified as heterosexual (93.3%), while 4.4% identified as gay and 1.4% bisexual, while .3% did not know their sexuality yet. A small part of the sample indicated to have different roots as their country of birth (7.5%) or their parents’ country of birth (15.4%) was not Belgium/Ireland. The mean Body Mass Index (BMI) was 24.16 (SD = 3.41).

Socio-demographic differences between the countries were assessed by Chi-square tests of independence and Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs). Differences for age (F₁₃₆₁ = 13.48, p < 0.001), student/work status (χ²₂ = 43.12, p < 0.001), education level (χ²₂ = 41.06, p < 0.001), and BMI (F₁₃₅₈ = 11.00, p < 0.001) were found. Irish men were older (M = 23.98, SD = 2.15) than Flemish men (M = 23.08, SD = 2.50). Irish men were also more likely to report a higher academic education than Flemish men (z = 2.50), while Flemish men were more likely to be a student than Irish men (z = 3.10). Irish men reported a higher BMI (M = 24.71, SD = 3.27) than Flemish men (M = 23.54, SD = 3.46). Subsequently, we controlled for age, student/work status, education level, and BMI in the analyses.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the five conditions: muscular (N = 70), slim (N = 73), plus-size (N = 72), diverse (N = 72), and no-model (N = 76). Chi square analyses⁴ and ANOVAs indicated that randomization was successful as groups did not differ on age (F₄₃₅₈ = .67, p = 0.61), student/work status (χ² = 4.13, p = 0.86), education level (χ²₈ = 3.64, p = 0.89), sexuality (χ² = 6.61, p = 0.99), BMI (F₄₃₅₆ = 0.23, p = 0.92), and country (χ²₄ = 0.64, p = 0.96).

Materials

Ads for a fictional surfboard brand named “Waves” were developed.⁵. A surfing ad was chosen as it enables us to show a full male body in a naturalistic setting while disguising the actual research question. Each ad featured the brand’s name, logo, a surfboard, and a slogan. Lay-out was kept the same across conditions. The same models were used across conditions but the body size and face were adjusted. The methodology used by Diedrichs and Lee (2010) was followed (see their study for exact measurements). Four model ads were created and each ad displayed a group of three models: (1) muscular models (size = medium), (2) slim models (size = small), (3) plus-size models (size = large), and (4) combination of muscular, slim, and plus-size models. The models’ faces were made a bit fuller or smaller to increase realism. The no-model condition only displayed a surfboard.

Measures

Trait masculinity—dominance and winning

The subscales Dominance and Winning of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI; shortened 55-item version; Mahalik et al., 2003; Owen, 2011) were used. The subscales contained 5 items each, such as “I am comfortable trying to get my way,” “I make sure people do as I say” (dominance), “It is important for me to win,” and “Winning is not everything, it is the only thing” (winning) rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (=strongly disagree) to 4 (=strongly agree). A Principal Components Analysis (PCA) confirmed the two-components structure (dominance: eigenvalue = 3.48, explained variance = 34.83%, α = 0.73; winning: eigenvalue = 2.00, explained variance = 20.03%, α = 0.83).

State body image

The Body Image States Scale (BISS; Cash et al., 2002) was used. This scale contains six items such as “dissatisfaction-satisfaction with one’s overall physical appearance” and “satisfaction-dissatisfaction with one’s body size and shape.” Participants evaluated each item “right now” on a 9-point bipolar Likert scale. This scale was previously validated among men (Diedrichs and Lee, 2010). A PCA confirmed the one-component structure (eigenvalue = 3.28, explained variance = 54.66%, α = 0.83). Higher scores indicated a more positive body image.

State self-objectification

The Male Assessment of Self-Objectification (MASO; Daniel et al., 2014) was used. Participants rated the importance of 13 appearance (e.g. upper arm diameter and sexual appeal) and 7 competence attributes (e.g. flexibility and endurance) “right now” on a 7-point scale from 0 (=not important at all) to 6 (=very important). A PCA yielded five components (eigenvalue >1). Because this scale was validated in previous research (Daniel et al., 2014), a forced two-component analysis was conducted to check whether the original factor structure would match our data (see Supplemental Appendix A on OSF for more detailed information and statistics). This is in line with the original scale development and the scree plot indicating to retain two to three components. Apart from item six “body weight,” which scored too low (<0.40) and crossloaded (difference of <0.20 between primary and alternative factor loading), and was excluded, all items scored as expected, generating an appearance (eigenvalue = 4.76, explained variance = 23.80%, α = 0.83) and a competence component (eigenvalue = 3.30, explained variance = 16.51%, α = 0.83). The self-objectification variable was calculated by subtracting the competence variable from the appearance variable. Higher scores indicate more self-objectification.

State body attitude—low body fat and muscularity

The Low Body Fat and Muscularity subscales of the Male Body Attitude Scale (MBAS; Tylka et al., 2005) were used. Items that could not be changed to state items without changing their wording were left out (see Supplemental Appendix A on OSF for more detailed information and statistics). The low body fat subscale contained seven items such as “I think my body should be leaner” and “I am concerned that my stomach is too flabby.” The muscularity subscale contained ten items such as “I think I have too little muscle on my body” and “I wish my arms were stronger.” Items were rated “right now” on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (=strongly disagree) to 7 (=strongly agree). A PCA yielded three components. Because this scale was previously validated (Tylka et al., 2005) and the scree plot indicated to retain two components, a forced two-component analysis was conducted. Apart from item eleven “I feel dissatisfied with my overall body build,” which crossloaded and was deleted, all items scored as expected, generating a muscularity (eigenvalue = 5.83, explained variance = 34.28%, α = 0.88) and a low body fat component (eigenvalue = 3.53, explained variance = 20.78%, α = 0.88). Higher scores indicated poorer body attitudes.

State self-esteem

The Single-Item Self-Esteem Scale (SISE; Robins et al., 2001) was adapted to a state version by asking participants their level of self-esteem “right now” on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (=low self-esteem) to 5 (=high self-esteem).

Attitude toward the ad

Respondents rated the ad according to five adjectives on a 7-point semantic differential scale: unappealing-appealing, bad-good, unpleasant-pleasant, unfavorable-favorable, and unlikeable-likeable (Schouten et al., 2020; Spears and Singh, 2004). A PCA confirmed the one-component structure (eigenvalue = 3.83, explained variance = 76.66%, α = 0.92).

Attitude toward the brand

The same attitude measure was used for attitude toward the brand. A PCA confirmed the one-component structure (eigenvalue = 4.20, explained variance = 83.93%, α = 0.95).

Purchase intention

Based on Schouten et al. (2020), a one-item measure was used “If you would be looking for a surfboard, how likely would you be to purchase a surfboard of this brand?” rated on a 7-point scale from 1 (=very unlikely) to 7 (=very likely).

Control variables

Age, student/work status, education level, and BMI were included as controls.

Procedure

An online between-subjects experiment was conducted. Participants were informed that the study investigated how they encountered media in their daily living environment and provided informed consent. Following other experimental research (Halliwell and Dittmar, 2004), participants started with completing questions on socio-demographics and masculinity. They were then randomly assigned to one of the five conditions and observed the ad for at least 20 seconds. Afterwards they answered questions on advertising effectiveness, body image, and self-esteem. A manipulation- and attention check was included. Participants failing the attention check were excluded.

Analytical strategy

The analysis strategy was uploaded on OSF in a pre-registration before accessing any data. Although it is not customary to check for measurement invariance when not running SEM analyses, we performed invariance tests in Mplus given the intercultural sample (see Supplemental Appendix B for results). Several assumptions were checked to assure our data met the criteria of a MANCOVA (Multivariate Analysis of Covariance) test. Data were checked for outliers and normality assumptions (skewness <3, kurtosis <10; Kline, 2011). Homogeneity of variance and covariance matrices were guaranteed because of the equal group sizes and large sample (Pillai’s trace was also reported because this statistic is robust; Field, 2013; Peter and Bennett, 2007). Independence of groups was assured by performing a randomization check. Next, two MANCOVAs were conducted to compare the different type of ads (i.e. muscular, slim, plus-size, diversity, and no models) on well-being (RQ1.1) and advertising effectiveness outcomes (RQ1.2). Next, these two MANCOVAs were repeated three times but with interaction terms to test for moderation of country (RQ2.1–RQ2.2), dominance (RQ3.1–RQ3.2), and winning (RQ4.1–RQ4.2).

Results

Manipulation check

The manipulation check was successful, that is, the plus-size models were rated as significantly larger than the slim and muscular models and the muscular models were rated as significantly more muscular than the slim and plus-size models (see Supplemental Appendix C for statistics).

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics.

Table 1.

Means and standard deviations (between brackets) of all variables as a function of condition.

	Muscular	Slim	Plus-size	Diverse	No model
Dominance	2.39 (0.41)	2.54 (0.49)	2.50 (0.44)	2.44 (0.45)	2.45 (0.46)
Winning	2.57 (0.52)	2.65 (0.56)	2.72 (0.54)	2.68 (0.61)	2.67 (0.51)
Body image	5.35 (1.25)	5.55 (1.42)	5.54 (1.32)	5.95 (1.20)	5.71 (1.36)
Self-objectification	−0.44 (1.19)	−0.62 (1.07)	−0.72 (1.04)	−0.59 (0.99)	−0.48 (1.04)
Body attitudes—muscularity	4.29 (1.14)	4.17 (1.12)	4.00 (1.19)	4.12 (1.04)	4.09 (1.06)
Body attitudes—low body fat	4.00 (1.45)	4.19 (1.38)	3.97 (1.41)	3.43 (1.31)	4.12 (1.42)
Self-esteem	3.26 (0.90)	3.62 (0.92)	3.42 (0.93)	3.49 (0.90)	3.44 (0.98)
Attitude toward the ad	4.15 (1.30)	4.30 (1.22)	4.36 (1.28)	4.50 (1.41)	4.64 (1.31)
Attitude toward the brand	4.18 (1.43)	4.44 (1.26)	4.68 (1.30)	4.45 (1.35)	4.56 (1.25)
Purchase intention	3.76 (1.35)	3.85 (1.50)	4.11 (1.24)	3.97 (1.23)	3.88 (1.19)

Testing research questions

RQ1.1 and RQ1.2: Effects of different models on well-being and ad effectiveness

An overall effect of the type of ad (i.e. no model vs muscular models vs slim models vs plus-size models vs diversity) on the well-being outcomes was found (Pillai’s trace = 0.09, F(20,1360) = 1.62, p < 0.05, ηp² = 0.02). More specifically, differences were found for low body fat attitudes (F(4341) = 4.24, p < 0.01, ηp² = 0.05). Bonferroni post-hoc tests revealed that men exposed to the diversity ad, experienced significantly more positive effects for low body fat attitudes than men exposed the muscular (p < 0.05), slim (p < 0.01), and control (p < 0.05) ads. No differences were found though between the diversity and plus-size condition with regard to low body fat attitudes. Furthermore, no effects were found for body image (F(4341) = 2.05, p = 0.09, ηp² = 0.02), muscularity attitudes (F(4341) = 0.66, p = 0.623, ηp² = 0.01), self-objectification (F(4341) = 0.81, p = 0.521, ηp² = 0.01), and self-esteem (F(4341) = 0.910, p = 0.458, ηp² = 0.01). Also no effect was found of the type of ad on ad attitudes, brand attitudes, and purchase intent (Pillai’s trace = 0.06, F(12,1032 = 1.63, p = 0.078, ηp² = 0.02). Overall, while we found that the diversity ad generated the most positive effects on low body fat attitudes (RQ1.1b), no effects were found for the other well-being outcomes (RQ1.1a, c, d, and e) as well as the advertising variables (RQ1.2a–c).

RQ2.1 and RQ2.2: moderation of country

No interaction effect was found between type of ad and country on body image, low body fat attitudes, muscularity attitudes, self-objectification, and self-esteem (Pillai’s trace = 0.04, F(20,1340 = 0.68, p = 0.851, ηp² = 0.01). Also no interaction effect was found on ad attitudes, brand attitudes, and purchase intent (Pillai’s trace = 0.03, F(12,1017 = 0.84, p = 0.611, ηp² = 0.01). Overall, country did thus not moderate the effects of the different ads on the well-being (RQ2.1a–e) and advertising (RQ2.2a–c) outcomes.

RQ3.1 and RQ3.2: moderation of dominance

No interaction effect was found between type of ad and dominance on body image, low body fat attitudes, muscularity attitudes, self-objectification, and self-esteem (Pillai’s trace = 0.09, F(20,1340 = 0.1.50, p = 0.07, ηp² = 0.02). Yet, an overall interaction was found for the advertising outcomes (Pillai’s trace = 0.06, F(12,1017 = 1.81, p < 0.05, ηp² = 0.02). More specifically, effects were found for purchase intent (F(4339) = 3.51, p < 0.01, ηp² = 0.04). Bonferroni post-hoc tests⁶ revealed that for men who were exposed to the slim condition, those high in dominance (M = 4.35, SD = .22) experienced significantly more positive effects for purchase intent (p < 0.01) than men low in dominance (M = 3.32, SD = 0.21; see also Figure 2). When making comparisons across conditions, we found that for men who were low in dominance, those exposed to the plus-size condition (M = 4.30, SD = 0.21) experienced significantly (p < 0.05) more positive effects for purchase intent than those exposed to the slim condition (M = 3.32, SD = 0.21). No interaction effect was found though for ad attitude (F(4339) = 1.38, p = 0.240, ηp² = 0.02) and brand attitude (F(4339) = 0.78, p = 0.542, ηp² = 0.01). Overall, we found that men low in dominance reported higher purchase intent (RQ3.2c) when being exposed to a plus-size model, while men high in dominance seemed to prefer a slim model. No moderating effects were found for the other advertising outcomes (RQ3.2a and b) as well as the well-being variables (RQ3.1a–e).

Figure 2.

Purchase intent for the different exposure conditions per level of dominance.

RQ4.1 and RQ4.2: moderation of winning

No interaction effect was found between type of ad and winning on body image, low body fat attitudes, muscularity attitudes, self-objectification, and self-esteem (Pillai’s trace = 0.06, F(20,1340) = 1.07, p = 0.372, ηp² = 0.02). Also no interaction effect was found on ad attitudes, brand attitudes, and purchase intent (Pillai’s trace = 0.03, F(12,1017 = 0.74, p = 0.713, ηp² = 0.01). Overall, winning did thus not moderate the effects of the different ads on the well-being (RQ4.1a–e) and advertising (RQ4.2a–c) outcomes.

Discussion

The first aim of this study was to investigate the effects of different male models (i.e. muscular vs slim vs plus-size vs overall diversity) on well-being (RQ1.1) and advertising perceptions (RQ1.2). With regard to RQ1.1b, we found that men who were exposed to the diversity condition, experience more positive effects on low body fat attitudes than men who were exposed to the muscular, slim, and no model conditions. However, it should be noted that we did not find any differences between the diversity and plus-size condition with regard to low body fat attitudes. This result might indicate that both diversity and plus-size model ads are able to generate positive effects for men’s body image whereas non-idealized model ads focusing on slim men seem to be less successful. This seems to confirm our reasoning that diversity ads are more recognizable because they integrate all kinds of body types (Webb et al., 2017). Yet, also plus-size models might speak to a wider public given that more men appear to be overweight than underweight. National statistics show that a little more than half of the male Belgian and Irish population is overweight (HSE, n.d.; Sciensano, 2022). Future research is thus encouraged to further look into media imagery that integrates plus-size or a diversity of body shapes as this type of advertising might be the most successful for men when it comes to body image. Furthermore, we did not find any effects for the other well-being variables (RQ1.1a, c, d, and e) and the advertising outcomes (RQ1.2). These findings conflict with the few studies on non-idealized male bodies, indicating that such models positively influence men’s body image (e.g. Ogden and Mundray, 1996) and perceived advertising effectiveness (e.g. Diedrichs and Lee, 2010). These null findings might be explained by both methodological as well as theoretical factors.

On a methodological level, the study manipulation was successful—therefore it is unlikely that these null findings are due to a failure to observe differences between body types. Yet, men were only exposed to one image for a short time, which may been insufficient. Cumulative exposure may be required for stronger effects on well-being and advertising perceptions to be observed. It is also possible that participants could not sufficiently relate to the surfing lifestyle that was portrayed and thus not compared themselves to the models in ways that could influence well-being and ad outcomes. Future studies would benefit from measuring level of investment in the products being advertised.

On a more theoretical note, it could be that non-idealized models do not yield protective effects for men as they do for women. The body positive movement, which advocates the inclusion of diverse body types in media, has been largely geared toward women. McKinney and Thompson’s (2020) qualitative study found that plus-size men were aware of the body positive movement but felt that it was more directed toward women and did not influence how they felt about their appearance. Men may be less attentive to the bodies of the models used in advertising versus women. Additionally, ideas of accepting non-idealized bodies appear to conflict with the hegemonic masculinity narrative, which views embodiment of a non-idealized body as a reflection of a failure to control one’s body (Bordo, 2000; Hargreaves and Tiggemann, 2006).

Apart from these main effects, we also analyzed the moderating influences of country (RQ2.1 and RQ2.2), dominance (RQ3.1 and RQ3.2), and winning (RQ4.1 and RQ4.2). With regard to RQ2.1 and RQ2.2, we did not find a moderating influence of country in the effects of model type on well-being and advertising outcomes. Although masculinity has been found to play an important role in men’s endorsement of the muscular ideal (Murray and Touyz, 2012), men’s perceptions of non-idealized bodies were not influenced by cultural masculinity levels. Hofstede’s (2001) masculinity categorizations might not be as applicable in contemporary contexts (Taras et al., 2012). Given growing globalization, the rankings of national cultures may have changed in the past decades and there may be less of a distinction in terms of masculinity between Ireland and Belgium as there may have been traditionally. Masculinity at a cultural level could also not adequately reflect an individual’s level of masculinity, which is likely to have a more proximal influence on men’s beliefs.

Therefore, we did explore the influence of individual masculinity, that is, the moderating impact of dominance and winning. With regard to RQ3.2c, we found that men with high levels of dominance in the slim condition, reported higher levels of purchasing intent. It seems counterintuitive that highly dominant men would exhibit more purchasing intent following exposure to non-idealized models. However, it could be that highly dominant men feel less threatened by a non-idealized model (downward contrastive comparison) and therefore respond positively to it. Further research is required to explore how trait masculinity may influence men’s perceptions of non-idealized bodies. Yet, no results were found for the well-being outcomes (RQ3.1) and other advertising variables (RQ3.2a and b). Also no moderating effects were found for winning in the effects of model type on well-being (RQ4.1) and advertising perceptions (RQ4.2). These, mainly null, findings, might be explained by the ambivalence that men report to advertising models (McKinney and Thompson, 2020). Exposure to male models may not activate masculinity schemas that are hypothesized to influence their perceptions toward non-idealized bodies. Alternatively, masculinity may relate to other aesthetic qualities than body size. Research has pointed out that men’s body image is not limited to dimensions of muscularity but also includes other aspects such as height or body hair (Tiggemann et al., 2008). Men have also been found to internalize body image in terms of body functionality as opposed to solely aesthetics (Grogan and Richards, 2002). Body dissatisfaction is commonly experienced among men as a failure to perform physical functions that reflect their masculinity (Adams et al., 2005). It is possible that masculinity levels influence men’s responses to functional rather than aesthetic presentations of male bodies. Future studies could investigate non-idealized male models more broadly by investigating those models in functional rather than passive poses.

Several limitations should be noted. Firstly, despite attempts to increase ecological validity, viewing an advertisement for a duration of 20 seconds, may not reflect real world effects. The study was also conducted online. Although we excluded participants who failed attention checks, participants may have completed the study under varying conditions. Another limitation was the lack of pre-exposure measures of state well-being outcomes, which were purposefully not included to avoid priming and demand characteristics. While we aimed to disguise the aims of the study from participants, it is still possible that demand characteristics may have influenced study findings. It is also important to note that this study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, and while we found no differences across conditions in COVID-19-induced stress and changes to exercise behaviors, it is still possible that these factors influenced men’s responses. Finally, our sample consisted out of WEIRD participants (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic; Henrich et al., 2010). Although some participants indicated to have different roots, most respondents were still Caucasian. Research has emphasized that ethnicity plays an important role when studying body image (Bruns and Carter, 2015). As such, our results should be interpreted with caution as they cannot be generalized to other groups from different backgrounds.

Overall, findings of this cross-cultural study suggest that exposure to a diversity ad with different types of male bodies had protective effects for men’s perceptions on low body fat. Additionally, men exhibiting high levels of dominance were found to report higher purchase intent when being exposed to non-idealized slim models as compared to men with low dominance levels. This was one of the first studies to investigate the impact of exposure to different types of non-idealized bodies in males and further research is required to verify these results.

Research Data

sj-docx-1-hpq-10.1177_13591053231152012 – Supplemental material for Intercultural insights on the impact of different non-idealized models on men’s body image and advertising perceptions

sj-docx-1-hpq-10.1177_13591053231152012 for Intercultural insights on the impact of different non-idealized models on men’s body image and advertising perceptions by Orpha de Lenne, Ciara Mahon, Steven Eggermont, Tim Smits, David Hevey and Laura Vandenbosch in Journal of Health Psychology

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-2-hpq-10.1177_13591053231152012 – Supplemental material for Intercultural insights on the impact of different non-idealized models on men’s body image and advertising perceptions

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-2-hpq-10.1177_13591053231152012 for Intercultural insights on the impact of different non-idealized models on men’s body image and advertising perceptions by Orpha de Lenne, Ciara Mahon, Steven Eggermont, Tim Smits, David Hevey and Laura Vandenbosch in Journal of Health Psychology

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-3-hpq-10.1177_13591053231152012 – Supplemental material for Intercultural insights on the impact of different non-idealized models on men’s body image and advertising perceptions

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-3-hpq-10.1177_13591053231152012 for Intercultural insights on the impact of different non-idealized models on men’s body image and advertising perceptions by Orpha de Lenne, Ciara Mahon, Steven Eggermont, Tim Smits, David Hevey and Laura Vandenbosch in Journal of Health Psychology

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-4-hpq-10.1177_13591053231152012 – Supplemental material for Intercultural insights on the impact of different non-idealized models on men’s body image and advertising perceptions

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-4-hpq-10.1177_13591053231152012 for Intercultural insights on the impact of different non-idealized models on men’s body image and advertising perceptions by Orpha de Lenne, Ciara Mahon, Steven Eggermont, Tim Smits, David Hevey and Laura Vandenbosch in Journal of Health Psychology

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank MA. Alanna Henry and MA. Yentell Perdieus for helping us to collect data.

Data sharing statement

The current article is accompanied by the relevant raw data generated during and/or analysed during the study, including files detailing the analyses and either the complete database or other relevant raw data. These files are available in the Figshare repository and accessible as Supplemental Material via the Sage Journals platform. Ethics approval, participant permissions, and all other relevant approvals were granted for this data sharing. The data files from the current study are also available in the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository at

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Research Foundation Flanders (Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Vlaanderen) [grant number 1125719N].

Ethics approval

Ethical approval was received from the Ethics Committees of the KU Leuven (SMEC—Sociaal-maatschappelijke Ethische Commissie; number G-2017 09 928) and Trinity College Dublin (School of Psychology Research Ethics Committee; number SPREC042020-06). Consent to participate was obtained at the beginning of the online questionnaire. Only participants who gave consent were able to proceed to the actual questionnaire.

ORCID iD

Orpha de Lenne

Notes

References

Adams

Turner

Bucks

(2005) The experience of body dissatisfaction in men. Body Image 2(3): 271–283.

Agliata

Tantleff-Dunn

(2004) The impact of media exposure on males’ body image. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 23(1): 7–22.

Baker

Elnakouri

Blanchard

(2019) The protective role of autonomous motivation against the effects of the “muscular ideal” on men’s self-objectification, appearance schema activation, and cognitive performance. Media Psychology 22(3): 473–500.

Betz

Ramsey

(2017) Should women be “all about that bass?” Diverse body-ideal messages and women’s body image. Body Image 22: 18–31.

Bordo

(2000) The Male Body: A New Look at Men in Public and in Private. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Breslow

Sandil

Brewster

, et al. (2020) Adonis on the apps: Online objectification, self-esteem, and sexual minority men. Psychology of Men & Masculinities 21(1): 25–35.

Brochu

Morrison

(2007) Implicit and explicit prejudice toward overweight and average-weight men and women: Testing their correspondence and relation to behavioral intentions. The Journal of Social Psychology 147(6): 681–706.

Bruns

Carter

(2015) Ethnic differences in the effects of media on body image: The effects of priming with ethnically different or similar models. Eating Behaviors 17: 33–36.

Calogero

Thompson

(2010) Gender and body image. In: Chrisler

McCreary

(eds) Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology. New York, NY: Springer, pp.153–184.

10.

Camerino

Prat

, et al. (2020) Has the use of body image in advertising changed in the first two decades of the new century? Physiology & Behavior 220: 112869.

11.

Cash

Fleming

Alindogan

, et al. (2002) Beyond body image as a trait: The development and validation of the body image states scale. Eating Disorders 10(2): 103–113.

12.

Choi

(2016) A cross-cultural study of plus-size consumer’s perception of body, attitude of accepting obesity and clothing behaviors in Korea and the US. Journal of the Korean Society of Costume 66(3): 75–92.

13.

Clay

Brickell

(2021) The dad bod: An impossible body? The Journal of Men’s Studies 30(1): 70–86.

14.

Dakanalis

Zanetti

Riva

, et al. (2015) Male body dissatisfaction and eating disorder symptomatology: Moderating variables among men. Journal of Health Psychology 20(1): 80–90.

15.

Daniel

Bridges

Martens

(2014) The development and validation of the Male Assessment of Self-Objectification (MASO). Psychology of Men & Masculinity 15(1): 78–89.

16.

Diedrichs

Lee

(2010) GI Joe or average Joe? The impact of average-size and muscular male fashion models on men’s and women’s body image and advertisement effectiveness. Body Image 7(3): 218–226.

17.

Festinger

(1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations 7(2): 117–140.

18.

Field

(2013) Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. London: Sage.

19.

Fredrickson

Roberts

T-A

Noll

, et al. (1998) That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75(1): 269–284.

20.

Gattario

Frisén

Fuller-Tyszkiewicz

, et al. (2015) How is men’s conformity to masculine norms related to their body image? Masculinity and muscularity across Western countries. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 16(3): 337–347.

21.

Grogan

Richards

(2002) Body image: Focus groups with boys and men. Men and Masculinities 4(3): 219–232.

22.

Halliwell

Dittmar

(2004) Does size matter? The impact of model’s body size on women’s body-focused anxiety and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 23(1): 104.

23.

Hargreaves

D. A.

Tiggemann

. (2009). Muscular ideal media images and men’s body image: Social comparison processing and individual vulnerability. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10(2), 109.

24.

Hargreaves

Tiggemann

(2006) ‘Body image is for girls’: A qualitative study of boys’ body image. Journal of Health Psychology 11(4): 567–576.

25.

Henrich

Heine

Norenzayan

(2010) Beyond WEIRD: Towards a broad-based behavioral science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33(2–3): 111–135.

26.

Hofstede

(2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Cultures. Sage.

27.

HSE (2022) Obesity national clinical programme. Irish Government. Available at: https://www.hse.ie/eng/about/who/cspd/ncps/obesity/ (accessed 4 May 2022).

28.

Klaczynski

Goold

Mudry

(2004) Culture, obesity stereotypes, self-esteem, and the “thin ideal”: A social identity perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 33(4): 307–317.

29.

Kline

(2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 3rd ed. Methodology in the social sciences. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

30.

Loken

Peck

(2005) The effects of instructional frame on female adolescents’ evaluations of larger sized female models in print advertising. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 35(4): 850–868.

31.

Lorenzen

Grieve

Thomas

(2004) Brief report: Exposure to muscular male models decreases men’s body satisfaction. Sex Roles 51(11–12): 743–748.

32.

Lou

Tse

(2020) Which model looks most like me? Explicating the impact of body image advertisements on female consumer well-being and consumption behaviour across brand categories. International Journal of Advertising 40(4): 602–628.

33.

Lowery

Kurpius

SER

Befort

, et al. (2005) Body image, self-esteem, and health-related behaviors among male and female first year college students. Journal of College Student Development 46(6): 612–623.

34.

Maes

Trekels

Tylka

, et al. (2021) The Positive Body Image among Adolescents Scale (PBIAS): Conceptualization, development, and psychometric evaluation among adolescents from Belgium. Body Image 38: 270–288.

35.

Mahalik

Locke

Ludlow

, et al. (2003) Development of the conformity to masculine norms inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 4(1): 3–25.

36.

McKinney

Thompson

(2020, November 18–20) Is the body positive movement too narrow? Extra large insights into plus size men and clothing offerings. In: International Textile and Apparel Association Annual Conference Proceedings, Iowa, vol. 77, no. 1. Iowa State University Digital Press.

37.

Murray

Touyz

(2012) Masculinity, femininity and male body image: A recipe for future research. International Journal of Men’s Health 11(3): 227–239.

38.

Mussweiler

(2003) Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review 110(3): 472–489.

39.

Myers

Crowther

(2009) Social comparison as a predictor of body dissatisfaction: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 118(4): 683–698.

40.

O’Beaglaoich

Morrison

Nielsen

E-J

, et al. (2015) Experiences of gender role conflict as described by Irish boys. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 16(3): 312–325.

41.

Ogden

Mundray

(1996) The effect of the media on body satisfaction: The role of gender and size. European Eating Disorders Review: The Professional Journal of the Eating Disorders Association 4(3): 171–182.

42.

Owen

(2011) Assessing the factor structures of the 55- and 22-item versions of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory. American Journal of Men’s Health 5(2): 118–128.

43.

Peter

Bennett

(2007) SPSS for the Health and Behavioural Sciences. Thomson Learning.

44.

Pounders

Mabry-Flynn

(2019) Consumer response toward plus-size models featured in the mainstream media. The Journal of Consumer Affairs 53(4): 1355–1379. DOI: 10.1111/joca.12251.

45.

Robins

Hendin

Trzesniewski

(2001) Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27(2): 151–161. DOI: 10.1177/0146167201272002.

46.

Ryan

Morrison

(2009) Factors perceived to influence young Irish men’s body image investment: A qualitative investigation. International Journal of Men’s Health 8(3): 213–234.

47.

Schouten

Janssen

Verspaget

(2020) Celebrity vs. influencer endorsements in advertising: The role of identification, credibility, and product-endorser fit. International Journal of Advertising 39(2): 258–281.

48.

Sciensano. (2022). Weight status. Belgian Government. Available at: https://www.healthybelgium.be/en/health-status/determinants-of-health/weight-status (accessed 4 May 2022).

49.

Spears

Singh

(2004) Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 26(2): 53–66.

50.

Stanford

Mccabe

(2002) Body image ideal among males and females: Sociocultural influences and focus on different body parts. Journal of Health Psychology 7(6): 675–684.

51.

Stavrova

Fetchenhauer

Schlösser

(2012) Cohabitation, gender, and happiness: A cross-cultural study in thirty countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 43(7): 1063–1081.

52.

Swami

Neofytou

R-V

Jablonska

, et al. (2013) Social dominance orientation predicts drive for muscularity among British men. Body Image 10(4): 653–656.

53.

Taras

Steel

Kirkman

(2012) Improving national cultural indices using a longitudinal meta-analysis of Hofstede’s dimensions. Journal of World Business 47(3): 329–341.

54.

Tiggemann

Martins

Churchett

(2008) Beyond muscles: Unexplored parts of men’s body image. Journal of Health Psychology 13(8): 1163–1172.

55.

Till

Busler

(2000) The match-up hypothesis: Physical attractiveness, expertise, and the role of fit on brand attitude, purchase intent and brand beliefs. Journal of Advertising 29(3): 1–13.

56.

Tod

Edwards

Cranswick

(2016) Muscle dysmorphia: Current insights. Psychology Research and Behavior Management 9: 179–188.

57.

Tylka

Bergeron

Schwartz

(2005) Development and psychometric evaluation of the Male Body Attitudes Scale (MBAS). Body Image 2(2): 161–175.

58.

Webb

Vinoski

Bonar

, et al. (2017) Fat is fashionable and fit: A comparative content analysis of Fatspiration and Health at Every Size Instagram images. Body Image 22: 53–64.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB

0.14 MB

0.46 MB

0.26 MB