Body Image 11 (2014) 303–306
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Body Image journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bodyimage
Brief research report
Connecting theory to fat talk: Body dissatisfaction mediates the relationships between weight discrepancy, upward comparison, body surveillance, and fat talk Analisa Arroyo ∗ Department of Communication Studies, University of Georgia, 613 Caldwell Hall, Athens, GA 30602, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 18 December 2013 Received in revised form 14 April 2014 Accepted 23 April 2014 Keywords: Fat talk Body dissatisfaction Self-discrepancy theory Social comparison theory Objectification theory
The fat talk literature is meager in terms of offering theoretical explanations for women’s self-disparaging communication. The research presented here sought to establish a relationship between three prominent body image theories – self-discrepancy theory, social comparison theory, and objectification theory – and fat talk by proposing body dissatisfaction as a potential mediating mechanism. Young adult women (N = 201) completed an online questionnaire. As predicted, results revealed that body dissatisfaction significantly mediated the relationships between weight discrepancy, upward comparison, body surveillance and fat talk. Effect size estimates indicated that the size of each indirect effect was medium in magnitude. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Many women experience normative discontent with their bodies (Rodin, Silberstein, & Striegel-Moore, 1985), wherein such dissatisfaction is predictive of fat talk (Sharpe, Naumann, Treasure, & Schmidt, 2013). Fat talk refers to the self-disparaging conversations women frequently have with one another about their bodies (Nichter, 2000), including comments indicating fear of becoming fat, among others (Ousley, Cordero, & White, 2008). The goal of this research is to connect fat talk to self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987), social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), and objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). These prominent body image theories explain negative self-perceptions, but have not been examined alongside one another to establish their unique contribution to fat talk. In so doing, this work identifies body dissatisfaction as a mediating mechanism by which weight discrepancy, social comparison, and objectification are associated with fat talk. Perceptions of body and weight are a product of influences, pressures, and ideals upheld by sociocultural messages and images that idealize women’s bodies and emphasize an unattainable standard for beauty ideals (Thompson, Heinberg, Altabe, & TantleffDunn, 1999). Thus, interpersonally disparaging one’s body is normative behavior among women. One study found that 93% of
∗ Tel.: +1 706 542 4893. E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.04.006 1740-1445/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
women report engaging in fat talk (Salk & Engeln-Maddox, 2011) and fat talk has been found to take place among women of all different ages and body sizes (Martz, Petroff, Curtin, & Bazzini, 2009). Research indicates that women engage in fat talk because it is an expected behavior: They feel pressure to make negative comments about themselves (more than positive or self-accepting comments) in order to “fit in” (Martz et al., 2009; Nichter, 2000). Other research suggests that women engage in fat talk as a way to express genuine concerns about their bodies: These comments appear to be rooted in and emphasize negative self-consciousness, with frequent engagement in fat talk leading to poor outcomes for the individual, including increased levels of depression (Arroyo & Harwood, 2012). As such, fat talk is thought to be the extension of body image and dissatisfaction into the realm of interpersonal relations.
The Current Study While different in their own respects, each of the following theories takes into account the larger context of women living in a society that emphasizes a narrow definition of physical attractiveness. Each theory also identifies a process that leads to body dissatisfaction, wherein such dissatisfaction is usually experienced when one strives to fit the thin ideal but does not. Consequently, body dissatisfaction is predictive of the denigration of one’s self (e.g., via fat talk) rather than the ideal.
304
A. Arroyo / Body Image 11 (2014) 303–306
First, self-discrepancy theory predicts that people are motivated to meet their ideal standards and experience dissatisfaction when there is a discrepancy between the attributes they believe they possess (actual self) and the attributes that they hope to possess (ideal self). Internalizing ideals that are different from the attributes they actually have is common among women, with the actual-ideal discrepancy predicting 59% of the variance explained in women’s appearance evaluation (Jacobi & Cash, 1994). Fat talk may be motivated by the dissatisfaction experienced as a result of this discrepancy, and it may be reflected in comments about “wishing” or “hoping” to be have a different body (e.g., “I wish I was thinner”). Second, social comparison theory posits that individuals compare themselves to others in effort to self-evaluate. When women engage in upward social comparisons with others whom they consider thinner or more attractive, it can lead to a number of negative outcomes, such as higher body dissatisfaction and pathogenic weight control methods (e.g., Ridolfi, Myers, Crowther, & Ciesla, 2011). Women likely become accustomed to making social comparisons, given that the social comparison process has been found to be automatic (Botta, 2000). It is possible that women use fat talk to express dissatisfaction and incorporate aspects of social comparison if they believe they do not adequately meet the standards of beauty (e.g., “Look how skinny she is and I am so fat”). Third, objectification theory posits that, in Western culture, women’s bodies are treated as objects used for the pleasure of others. This often leads women to self-objectify, meaning they treat their own bodies as objects that should be evaluated. Selfobjectification has been previously linked to fat talk, such that women who experience self-objectification describe their appearance more negatively than women who are not exposed to those images (Aubrey, Henson, Hopper, & Smith, 2009). Accordingly, fat talk is thought to be a manifestation of body dissatisfaction and body ideals wherein women communicatively evaluate their bodies (e.g., “I hate my stomach”). Toward that end, self-discrepancy theory, social comparison theory, and objectification theory may provide fruitful avenues for understanding fat talk, as the fat talk literature is limited in terms of offering theoretical explanations for why women engage in such talk. Each theory explains a cognitive process by which women make sense of their bodies in the midst of sociocultural pressures, and each theory identifies a process that leads to body dissatisfaction. Because “fat talk uses weight as a reference point for feelings” (Gapinski, Brownell, & LaFrance, 2003, p. 278), such talk may provide an outlet for negative emotions and allow women to obtain social validation (Nichter, 2000). Negative self-perceptions may therefore motivate women to engage in fat talk in effort to seek feedback, cope with, and express their concerns. Thus, the current research utilizes each of these theories to identify body dissatisfaction as a motivation to engage in fat talk. Specifically, it is hypothesized that weight discrepancy, social comparison, and objectification are associated with fat talk through body dissatisfaction.
Method Participants Undergraduate women (N = 201) were recruited from communication classes at a large university in the Southwestern United States. Participants completed an online questionnaire and received extra credit from their instructors for their participation. A majority of the women were White (83.10%; 7.50% Latina, 3.50% African American, 3.00% Asian, and 3.00% other), young adults (M = 20.15, SD = 1.39), and were of average body size (BMI: M = 26.05; SD = 3.97).
Measures Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alphas for each study variable can be found in Table 1. Unless otherwise noted, items were rated on Likert scales and were averaged, with high scores denoting higher scores on the corresponding measures. Predictor Variables Weight discrepancy. The absolute value of the difference between participants’ self-report ideal weight from their selfreport actual weight was used as an indicator of self-discrepancy theory; higher scores indicate a larger discrepancy between one’s actual and ideal weight. Upward comparison. O’Brien et al.’s (2009) 10-item Upward Physical Appearance Comparison Scale was used as an indicator of social comparison theory (e.g., “I tend to compare myself to people I think look better than me;” 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Body surveillance. The 8-item Body Surveillance subscale from McKinley and Hyde’s (1996) Objectified Body Consciousness Scale was used as an indicator of objectification theory (e.g., “During the day, I think about how I look many times;” 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Mediating Variable Body dissatisfaction. Garner’s (2004) 10-item Body Dissatisfaction subscale from the Eating Disorders Inventory-3 was utilized (e.g., “I think my stomach is too big;” “I think that my thighs are too large;” 1 = never to 6 = always). Criterion Variable Fat talk. The Body Concerns subscale from Engeln-Maddox, Salk, and Miller’s (2012) Negative Body Talk Scale was utilized. Participants rated the frequency of saying similar comments to seven different weight-related statements in the past week (e.g., “I need to go on a diet;” 1 = never to 6 = always). Engeln-Maddox et al. (2012) found evidence of convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity and satisfactory reliability across a series of five studies with samples of U.S. undergraduate women. Results Zero-order correlations can be found in Table 1. Hypothesis testing was conducted using Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS Macro for SPSS, wherein each model used 5000 bootstrapped resamples that generated 95% bias corrected and adjusted confidence intervals for the indirect effect. Three mediation models were conducted: Weight discrepancy, upward comparison, and body surveillance were predictors in separate models, body dissatisfaction was the mediator, and fat talk was the criterion variable; BMI and each of the other predictor variables were covariates in each model. As shown in Table 2, body dissatisfaction significantly mediated the relationship between weight discrepancy, upward comparison, and body surveillance and fat talk. A k2 statistic - which is the recommended effect size for indirect effects (Preacher & Kelley, 2011) – was also calculated for each of the mediation models. k2 can range from 0 to 1 and represents the size of the indirect effect relative to what it could theoretically be. Results indicated that the sizes of the indirect effects of weight discrepancy, upward comparison, and body surveillance were .18, .15, .12, respectively. k2 can be interpreted as small (>.01), medium (>.09), and large (>.25; Preacher
A. Arroyo / Body Image 11 (2014) 303–306
305
Table 1 Zero-order correlations, means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alphas for study variables. 1 1. BMI 2. Weight discrepancy 3. Upward comparison 4. Body surveillance 5. Fat talk 6. Body dissatisfaction
.06 −.05 −.03 −.02 .04
*
– .15* .22** .45** .42**
26.05 3.96 –
Mean SD Cronbach’s alpha **
2
3
4
5
6
– .60** .44** .43**
– .38** .42**
– .65**
–
3.45 0.86 .94
3.53 0.63 .79
3.18 1.03 .93
3.45 0.95 .88
–
10.55 9.16 –
p < .05. p < .01.
& Kelley, 2011, p. 108), thus each indirect effect was medium in magnitude. Discussion Body dissatisfaction is predictive of fat talk (Clarke, Murnen, & Smolak, 2010), however the extent literature is limited in offering theoretical explanations for this connection. To fill this gap, the current research sought to connect fat talk to self-discrepancy theory, social comparison theory, and objectification theory. As hypothesized, each predictor variable was positively associated with body dissatisfaction, and, in turn, body dissatisfaction was positively related to fat talk. Compared to much of the research that has explored the interpersonal and social conditions in which fat talk occurs, the current results further our understanding of fat talk as an inter- and intrapersonal process by which women express and propagate their body image concerns. As previously mentioned, each theory identifies processes that lead to body dissatisfaction and considers the broader context of women living in a society that emphasizes a narrow and unattainable definition of beauty. Each theory is also based on the idea that women’s self-views result from an internalization of the thin ideal. Internalization is an adoption of the thin ideal as one’s own personal ideal (e.g., “photographs of thin women make me wish I were thin;” Heinberg, Thompson, & Stormer, 1995) and, as a result, women’s communication about their bodies may represent the cognitions that one should fit that ideal but does not (“I wish my stomach was flatter”). These theories differ in the sense that objectification theory originates and is interested in how societal and distal factors (e.g., sexualized images in the media) influence selfevaluations and cognitions, whereas self-discrepancy theory and social comparison theory are interested in intra-individual cognitions, comparisons, and evaluations. Fat talk comments appear to be rooted in fear and hopelessness and emphasize negative self-concepts, so the current findings support the idea that weight-related talk expresses body-related ideals, evaluations, and distress. Because self-discrepancies are theoretically related to dejecting emotions, such as disappointment and dissatisfaction (Higgins, 1987), the current results might be
attributable to the fact that a larger weight discrepancy is most closely associated with body-related concerns and dissatisfaction. In fact, other researchers use weight discrepancies as an indicator of body dissatisfaction (Thompson et al., 1999, p. 52), and such dissatisfaction has been linked to fat talk (Arroyo & Harwood, 2012). Upward comparisons were also related to body dissatisfaction and discrepancies. However, the cognitions related to weight discrepancies and social comparisons are not the same: Weight discrepancy is a comparison of self to self, whereas social comparison involves comparing the self to another person. Thus, although similar in terms of mental comparisons and evaluations, the communication that may stem from the social comparison process may be different from weight discrepancies. For instance, women may make comments about other people’s weight if driven by social comparison, whereas weight discrepancies would likely be related to negative self-referential comments (as this study investigated). Therefore, it is important to further investigate the theoretical mechanisms that may make women more inclined to engage in fat talk comments as well as the specific comments that may be associated with different motivations. Body surveillance was also predictive of fat talk through body dissatisfaction, which is likely because these comments appear to be reflective of the social construction of thinness as an indicator of attractiveness. This draws attention to the role of communication in developing and maintaining social realities. Reality is an ongoing process reproduced by individuals’ acting in ways that reflect their interpretations of it: By engaging in fat talk, women are not only maintaining society’s objectification of their bodies, they are also re-creating and socially constructing their own experiences of weight discrepancy, social comparison, and objectification. The fat talk literature has generally explored interpersonal conditions in which fat talk occurs, suggesting fat talk serves several functions, including managing one’s impression during conversations (Nichter, 2000). These functions are inherently different from the current research’s prediction that fat talk functions to express body dissatisfaction associated within an intrapersonal process – cognitive discrepancies, comparisons, and surveillance. Yet, the fact that fat talk occurs in social situations where women conform to group norms suggests that women’s communication and behaviors
Table 2 The indirect effect of weight discrepancy, upward social comparisons, and body surveillance on fat talk through body dissatisfaction.
Weight discrepancy Upward comparison Body surveillance
IV → M
M → DV
IV → DV (Direct)
IV → DV (Indirect)
.03** .28** .32**
.58** .58** .58**
.01# .10 .12
.02 .16 .19
95% CI
k2
.01, .03* .07, .28* .07, .32*
.18 .15 .12
Note. IV = predictor variable, M = mediating variable, DV = criterion variable. Coefficients are unstandardized regression coefficients from Hayes (2013) Process Macro in SPSS. Confidence intervals (CI) not including zero demonstrate a statistically significant indirect effect and are indicated with an asterisk (*). BMI was used as a covariate in each of the analyses, as well as both of the other predictor variables (e.g., body surveillance and upward comparison were covariates in the weight discrepancy model). # p < .10. ** p < .01.
306
A. Arroyo / Body Image 11 (2014) 303–306
may contribute to their own and others’ self-perceptions (Nichter, 2000). Accordingly, this research offers that fat talk is more than an expected and normative behavior; rather, fat talk is suggested to be a communication process wherein cognitions and self-perceptions are expressed and maintained between women. Limitations of this study point to directions for the future. First, past research and the current findings suggest that poor selfperceptions may be predictive of fat talk. However, because of the cross-sectional nature of the data, causal claims cannot be made. Second, the sample size was not very large and the participants were homogenous in terms of race/ethnicity, age, and educational attainment; one should take caution in overgeneralizing these results. Third, the use of Engeln-Maddox et al.’s (2012) Negative Body Talk Scale, which only measures frequency of self-referential statements without taking into account the social context, may limit our understanding of the social functions and collaborative process of fat talk (as opposed to other measures of fat talk: e.g., Clarke et al.’s (2010) Fat Talk Scale). Fourth, this work used variables of weight discrepancy, upward comparison, and body surveillance as indicators of their corresponding theory. The use of only one variable does not take into account the detailed processes put forth by each of the theories; thus, tests of these theories were not conducted in their entirety. Future research would benefit from further exploring specific theoretical mechanisms used in this study as they relate to fat talk. For example, social comparison theory identifies both upward and downward comparisons; it is possible that downward comparisons might be related to more positive feelings of self given that such comparisons involve comparing oneself to someone whom they consider worse off. Further, there is also utility in combining the proposed theoretical mechanisms in effort to see if they work together in predicting fat talk (e.g., self-objectification and social comparisons: Linder, Tantleff-Dunn, & Jentsch, 2012). By further exploring the theoretical mechanisms of fat talk, we can better understand the causes and consequences of women engaging in this self-disparaging talk. References Arroyo, A., & Harwood, J. (2012). Exploring the causes and consequences of engaging in fat talk. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 40, 167–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2012.654500 Aubrey, J. S., Henson, J. R., Hopper, K. M., & Smith, S. E. (2009). A picture is worth twenty words (about the self): Testing the priming influence of visual sexual objectification on women’s self-objectification. Communication Research Reports, 26, 271–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824090903293551 Botta, R. A. (2000). The mirror of television: A comparison of Black and White adolescents’ body image. Journal of Communication, 50, 144–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/joc/50.3.144 Clarke, P. M., Murnen, S. K., & Smolak, L. (2010). Development and psychometric evaluation of a quantitative measure of fat talk. Body Image, 7, 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.09.006
Engeln-Maddox, R., Salk, R. H., & Miller, S. A. (2012). Assessing women’s negative commentary on their own bodies: A psychometric investigation of the Negative Body Talk Scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 162–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684312441593 Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202 Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x Gapinski, K. D., Brownell, K. D., & LaFrance, M. (2003). Body objectification and fat talk: Effects on emotion, motivation, and cognitive performance. Sex Roles, 48, 377–388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1023516209973 Garner, D. M. (2004). Eating Disorder Inventory – Third edition (EDI-3). Lutz. FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press. Heinberg, L. J., Thompson, J. K., & Stormer, S. (1995). Development and validation of the Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 17, 81–89. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/1098-108X(199501)17 Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 304–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.94.3.319 Jacobi, L., & Cash, T. F. (1994). In pursuit of the perfect appearance: Discrepancies among self-ideal percepts of multiple physical attributes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 379–396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j. 1559-1816.1994.tb00588.x Linder, D., Tantleff-Dunn, S., & Jentsch, F. (2012). Social comparison and the ‘circle of objectification. Sex Roles, 67, 222–235. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s11199-012-0175-x Martz, D. M., Petroff, A. B., Curtin, L., & Bazzini, D. G. (2009). Gender differences in fat talk among American adults: Results from the psychology of size survey. Sex Roles, 61, 34–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9587-7 McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The Objectified Body Consciousness Scale: Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 181–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1471-6402.1996.tb00467.x Nichter, M. (2000). Fat talk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. O’Brien, K. S., Caputi, P., Minto, R., Peoples, G., Hooper, C., Kell, S., & Sawley, E. (2009). Upward and downward physical appearance comparisons: Development of scales. Body Image, 6, 201–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.03.003 Ousley, L., Cordero, E. D., & White, S. (2008). Fat talk among college students: How undergraduates communication regarding food and body weight, shape and appearance. Eating Disorders, 16, 73–84. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/10640260701773546 Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect sizes measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16, 93–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022658 Ridolfi, D. R., Myers, T. A., Crowther, J. H., & Ciesla, J. A. (2011). Do appearance focused cognitive distortions moderate the relationship between social comparisons to peers and media images and body image disturbance? Sex Roles, 65, 491–505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9961-0 Rodin, J., Silberstein, L., & Striegel-Moore, R. (1985). Women and weight: A normative discontent. In T. B. Sonderegger (Ed.), Psychology and gender (Vol. 32) Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 37–267). Lincoln: University of Nebraska. Salk, R. H., & Engeln-Maddox, R. (2011). If you’re fat, then I’m humongous!: Frequency, content, and impact of fat talk among college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 18–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684310384107 Sharpe, H., Naumann, U., Treasure, J., & Schmidt, U. (2013). Is fat talking a causal risk factor for body dissatisfaction? A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 46, 643–652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.22151 Thompson, J. K., Heinberg, L. J., Altabe, M., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (1999). Exacting beauty: Theory, assessment, and treatment of body image disturbance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10312-000
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Body Image journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bodyimage
Brief research report
Connecting theory to fat talk: Body dissatisfaction mediates the relationships between weight discrepancy, upward comparison, body surveillance, and fat talk Analisa Arroyo ∗ Department of Communication Studies, University of Georgia, 613 Caldwell Hall, Athens, GA 30602, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 18 December 2013 Received in revised form 14 April 2014 Accepted 23 April 2014 Keywords: Fat talk Body dissatisfaction Self-discrepancy theory Social comparison theory Objectification theory
The fat talk literature is meager in terms of offering theoretical explanations for women’s self-disparaging communication. The research presented here sought to establish a relationship between three prominent body image theories – self-discrepancy theory, social comparison theory, and objectification theory – and fat talk by proposing body dissatisfaction as a potential mediating mechanism. Young adult women (N = 201) completed an online questionnaire. As predicted, results revealed that body dissatisfaction significantly mediated the relationships between weight discrepancy, upward comparison, body surveillance and fat talk. Effect size estimates indicated that the size of each indirect effect was medium in magnitude. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Many women experience normative discontent with their bodies (Rodin, Silberstein, & Striegel-Moore, 1985), wherein such dissatisfaction is predictive of fat talk (Sharpe, Naumann, Treasure, & Schmidt, 2013). Fat talk refers to the self-disparaging conversations women frequently have with one another about their bodies (Nichter, 2000), including comments indicating fear of becoming fat, among others (Ousley, Cordero, & White, 2008). The goal of this research is to connect fat talk to self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987), social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), and objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). These prominent body image theories explain negative self-perceptions, but have not been examined alongside one another to establish their unique contribution to fat talk. In so doing, this work identifies body dissatisfaction as a mediating mechanism by which weight discrepancy, social comparison, and objectification are associated with fat talk. Perceptions of body and weight are a product of influences, pressures, and ideals upheld by sociocultural messages and images that idealize women’s bodies and emphasize an unattainable standard for beauty ideals (Thompson, Heinberg, Altabe, & TantleffDunn, 1999). Thus, interpersonally disparaging one’s body is normative behavior among women. One study found that 93% of
∗ Tel.: +1 706 542 4893. E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.04.006 1740-1445/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
women report engaging in fat talk (Salk & Engeln-Maddox, 2011) and fat talk has been found to take place among women of all different ages and body sizes (Martz, Petroff, Curtin, & Bazzini, 2009). Research indicates that women engage in fat talk because it is an expected behavior: They feel pressure to make negative comments about themselves (more than positive or self-accepting comments) in order to “fit in” (Martz et al., 2009; Nichter, 2000). Other research suggests that women engage in fat talk as a way to express genuine concerns about their bodies: These comments appear to be rooted in and emphasize negative self-consciousness, with frequent engagement in fat talk leading to poor outcomes for the individual, including increased levels of depression (Arroyo & Harwood, 2012). As such, fat talk is thought to be the extension of body image and dissatisfaction into the realm of interpersonal relations.
The Current Study While different in their own respects, each of the following theories takes into account the larger context of women living in a society that emphasizes a narrow definition of physical attractiveness. Each theory also identifies a process that leads to body dissatisfaction, wherein such dissatisfaction is usually experienced when one strives to fit the thin ideal but does not. Consequently, body dissatisfaction is predictive of the denigration of one’s self (e.g., via fat talk) rather than the ideal.
304
A. Arroyo / Body Image 11 (2014) 303–306
First, self-discrepancy theory predicts that people are motivated to meet their ideal standards and experience dissatisfaction when there is a discrepancy between the attributes they believe they possess (actual self) and the attributes that they hope to possess (ideal self). Internalizing ideals that are different from the attributes they actually have is common among women, with the actual-ideal discrepancy predicting 59% of the variance explained in women’s appearance evaluation (Jacobi & Cash, 1994). Fat talk may be motivated by the dissatisfaction experienced as a result of this discrepancy, and it may be reflected in comments about “wishing” or “hoping” to be have a different body (e.g., “I wish I was thinner”). Second, social comparison theory posits that individuals compare themselves to others in effort to self-evaluate. When women engage in upward social comparisons with others whom they consider thinner or more attractive, it can lead to a number of negative outcomes, such as higher body dissatisfaction and pathogenic weight control methods (e.g., Ridolfi, Myers, Crowther, & Ciesla, 2011). Women likely become accustomed to making social comparisons, given that the social comparison process has been found to be automatic (Botta, 2000). It is possible that women use fat talk to express dissatisfaction and incorporate aspects of social comparison if they believe they do not adequately meet the standards of beauty (e.g., “Look how skinny she is and I am so fat”). Third, objectification theory posits that, in Western culture, women’s bodies are treated as objects used for the pleasure of others. This often leads women to self-objectify, meaning they treat their own bodies as objects that should be evaluated. Selfobjectification has been previously linked to fat talk, such that women who experience self-objectification describe their appearance more negatively than women who are not exposed to those images (Aubrey, Henson, Hopper, & Smith, 2009). Accordingly, fat talk is thought to be a manifestation of body dissatisfaction and body ideals wherein women communicatively evaluate their bodies (e.g., “I hate my stomach”). Toward that end, self-discrepancy theory, social comparison theory, and objectification theory may provide fruitful avenues for understanding fat talk, as the fat talk literature is limited in terms of offering theoretical explanations for why women engage in such talk. Each theory explains a cognitive process by which women make sense of their bodies in the midst of sociocultural pressures, and each theory identifies a process that leads to body dissatisfaction. Because “fat talk uses weight as a reference point for feelings” (Gapinski, Brownell, & LaFrance, 2003, p. 278), such talk may provide an outlet for negative emotions and allow women to obtain social validation (Nichter, 2000). Negative self-perceptions may therefore motivate women to engage in fat talk in effort to seek feedback, cope with, and express their concerns. Thus, the current research utilizes each of these theories to identify body dissatisfaction as a motivation to engage in fat talk. Specifically, it is hypothesized that weight discrepancy, social comparison, and objectification are associated with fat talk through body dissatisfaction.
Method Participants Undergraduate women (N = 201) were recruited from communication classes at a large university in the Southwestern United States. Participants completed an online questionnaire and received extra credit from their instructors for their participation. A majority of the women were White (83.10%; 7.50% Latina, 3.50% African American, 3.00% Asian, and 3.00% other), young adults (M = 20.15, SD = 1.39), and were of average body size (BMI: M = 26.05; SD = 3.97).
Measures Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alphas for each study variable can be found in Table 1. Unless otherwise noted, items were rated on Likert scales and were averaged, with high scores denoting higher scores on the corresponding measures. Predictor Variables Weight discrepancy. The absolute value of the difference between participants’ self-report ideal weight from their selfreport actual weight was used as an indicator of self-discrepancy theory; higher scores indicate a larger discrepancy between one’s actual and ideal weight. Upward comparison. O’Brien et al.’s (2009) 10-item Upward Physical Appearance Comparison Scale was used as an indicator of social comparison theory (e.g., “I tend to compare myself to people I think look better than me;” 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Body surveillance. The 8-item Body Surveillance subscale from McKinley and Hyde’s (1996) Objectified Body Consciousness Scale was used as an indicator of objectification theory (e.g., “During the day, I think about how I look many times;” 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Mediating Variable Body dissatisfaction. Garner’s (2004) 10-item Body Dissatisfaction subscale from the Eating Disorders Inventory-3 was utilized (e.g., “I think my stomach is too big;” “I think that my thighs are too large;” 1 = never to 6 = always). Criterion Variable Fat talk. The Body Concerns subscale from Engeln-Maddox, Salk, and Miller’s (2012) Negative Body Talk Scale was utilized. Participants rated the frequency of saying similar comments to seven different weight-related statements in the past week (e.g., “I need to go on a diet;” 1 = never to 6 = always). Engeln-Maddox et al. (2012) found evidence of convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity and satisfactory reliability across a series of five studies with samples of U.S. undergraduate women. Results Zero-order correlations can be found in Table 1. Hypothesis testing was conducted using Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS Macro for SPSS, wherein each model used 5000 bootstrapped resamples that generated 95% bias corrected and adjusted confidence intervals for the indirect effect. Three mediation models were conducted: Weight discrepancy, upward comparison, and body surveillance were predictors in separate models, body dissatisfaction was the mediator, and fat talk was the criterion variable; BMI and each of the other predictor variables were covariates in each model. As shown in Table 2, body dissatisfaction significantly mediated the relationship between weight discrepancy, upward comparison, and body surveillance and fat talk. A k2 statistic - which is the recommended effect size for indirect effects (Preacher & Kelley, 2011) – was also calculated for each of the mediation models. k2 can range from 0 to 1 and represents the size of the indirect effect relative to what it could theoretically be. Results indicated that the sizes of the indirect effects of weight discrepancy, upward comparison, and body surveillance were .18, .15, .12, respectively. k2 can be interpreted as small (>.01), medium (>.09), and large (>.25; Preacher
A. Arroyo / Body Image 11 (2014) 303–306
305
Table 1 Zero-order correlations, means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alphas for study variables. 1 1. BMI 2. Weight discrepancy 3. Upward comparison 4. Body surveillance 5. Fat talk 6. Body dissatisfaction
.06 −.05 −.03 −.02 .04
*
– .15* .22** .45** .42**
26.05 3.96 –
Mean SD Cronbach’s alpha **
2
3
4
5
6
– .60** .44** .43**
– .38** .42**
– .65**
–
3.45 0.86 .94
3.53 0.63 .79
3.18 1.03 .93
3.45 0.95 .88
–
10.55 9.16 –
p < .05. p < .01.
& Kelley, 2011, p. 108), thus each indirect effect was medium in magnitude. Discussion Body dissatisfaction is predictive of fat talk (Clarke, Murnen, & Smolak, 2010), however the extent literature is limited in offering theoretical explanations for this connection. To fill this gap, the current research sought to connect fat talk to self-discrepancy theory, social comparison theory, and objectification theory. As hypothesized, each predictor variable was positively associated with body dissatisfaction, and, in turn, body dissatisfaction was positively related to fat talk. Compared to much of the research that has explored the interpersonal and social conditions in which fat talk occurs, the current results further our understanding of fat talk as an inter- and intrapersonal process by which women express and propagate their body image concerns. As previously mentioned, each theory identifies processes that lead to body dissatisfaction and considers the broader context of women living in a society that emphasizes a narrow and unattainable definition of beauty. Each theory is also based on the idea that women’s self-views result from an internalization of the thin ideal. Internalization is an adoption of the thin ideal as one’s own personal ideal (e.g., “photographs of thin women make me wish I were thin;” Heinberg, Thompson, & Stormer, 1995) and, as a result, women’s communication about their bodies may represent the cognitions that one should fit that ideal but does not (“I wish my stomach was flatter”). These theories differ in the sense that objectification theory originates and is interested in how societal and distal factors (e.g., sexualized images in the media) influence selfevaluations and cognitions, whereas self-discrepancy theory and social comparison theory are interested in intra-individual cognitions, comparisons, and evaluations. Fat talk comments appear to be rooted in fear and hopelessness and emphasize negative self-concepts, so the current findings support the idea that weight-related talk expresses body-related ideals, evaluations, and distress. Because self-discrepancies are theoretically related to dejecting emotions, such as disappointment and dissatisfaction (Higgins, 1987), the current results might be
attributable to the fact that a larger weight discrepancy is most closely associated with body-related concerns and dissatisfaction. In fact, other researchers use weight discrepancies as an indicator of body dissatisfaction (Thompson et al., 1999, p. 52), and such dissatisfaction has been linked to fat talk (Arroyo & Harwood, 2012). Upward comparisons were also related to body dissatisfaction and discrepancies. However, the cognitions related to weight discrepancies and social comparisons are not the same: Weight discrepancy is a comparison of self to self, whereas social comparison involves comparing the self to another person. Thus, although similar in terms of mental comparisons and evaluations, the communication that may stem from the social comparison process may be different from weight discrepancies. For instance, women may make comments about other people’s weight if driven by social comparison, whereas weight discrepancies would likely be related to negative self-referential comments (as this study investigated). Therefore, it is important to further investigate the theoretical mechanisms that may make women more inclined to engage in fat talk comments as well as the specific comments that may be associated with different motivations. Body surveillance was also predictive of fat talk through body dissatisfaction, which is likely because these comments appear to be reflective of the social construction of thinness as an indicator of attractiveness. This draws attention to the role of communication in developing and maintaining social realities. Reality is an ongoing process reproduced by individuals’ acting in ways that reflect their interpretations of it: By engaging in fat talk, women are not only maintaining society’s objectification of their bodies, they are also re-creating and socially constructing their own experiences of weight discrepancy, social comparison, and objectification. The fat talk literature has generally explored interpersonal conditions in which fat talk occurs, suggesting fat talk serves several functions, including managing one’s impression during conversations (Nichter, 2000). These functions are inherently different from the current research’s prediction that fat talk functions to express body dissatisfaction associated within an intrapersonal process – cognitive discrepancies, comparisons, and surveillance. Yet, the fact that fat talk occurs in social situations where women conform to group norms suggests that women’s communication and behaviors
Table 2 The indirect effect of weight discrepancy, upward social comparisons, and body surveillance on fat talk through body dissatisfaction.
Weight discrepancy Upward comparison Body surveillance
IV → M
M → DV
IV → DV (Direct)
IV → DV (Indirect)
.03** .28** .32**
.58** .58** .58**
.01# .10 .12
.02 .16 .19
95% CI
k2
.01, .03* .07, .28* .07, .32*
.18 .15 .12
Note. IV = predictor variable, M = mediating variable, DV = criterion variable. Coefficients are unstandardized regression coefficients from Hayes (2013) Process Macro in SPSS. Confidence intervals (CI) not including zero demonstrate a statistically significant indirect effect and are indicated with an asterisk (*). BMI was used as a covariate in each of the analyses, as well as both of the other predictor variables (e.g., body surveillance and upward comparison were covariates in the weight discrepancy model). # p < .10. ** p < .01.
306
A. Arroyo / Body Image 11 (2014) 303–306
may contribute to their own and others’ self-perceptions (Nichter, 2000). Accordingly, this research offers that fat talk is more than an expected and normative behavior; rather, fat talk is suggested to be a communication process wherein cognitions and self-perceptions are expressed and maintained between women. Limitations of this study point to directions for the future. First, past research and the current findings suggest that poor selfperceptions may be predictive of fat talk. However, because of the cross-sectional nature of the data, causal claims cannot be made. Second, the sample size was not very large and the participants were homogenous in terms of race/ethnicity, age, and educational attainment; one should take caution in overgeneralizing these results. Third, the use of Engeln-Maddox et al.’s (2012) Negative Body Talk Scale, which only measures frequency of self-referential statements without taking into account the social context, may limit our understanding of the social functions and collaborative process of fat talk (as opposed to other measures of fat talk: e.g., Clarke et al.’s (2010) Fat Talk Scale). Fourth, this work used variables of weight discrepancy, upward comparison, and body surveillance as indicators of their corresponding theory. The use of only one variable does not take into account the detailed processes put forth by each of the theories; thus, tests of these theories were not conducted in their entirety. Future research would benefit from further exploring specific theoretical mechanisms used in this study as they relate to fat talk. For example, social comparison theory identifies both upward and downward comparisons; it is possible that downward comparisons might be related to more positive feelings of self given that such comparisons involve comparing oneself to someone whom they consider worse off. Further, there is also utility in combining the proposed theoretical mechanisms in effort to see if they work together in predicting fat talk (e.g., self-objectification and social comparisons: Linder, Tantleff-Dunn, & Jentsch, 2012). By further exploring the theoretical mechanisms of fat talk, we can better understand the causes and consequences of women engaging in this self-disparaging talk. References Arroyo, A., & Harwood, J. (2012). Exploring the causes and consequences of engaging in fat talk. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 40, 167–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2012.654500 Aubrey, J. S., Henson, J. R., Hopper, K. M., & Smith, S. E. (2009). A picture is worth twenty words (about the self): Testing the priming influence of visual sexual objectification on women’s self-objectification. Communication Research Reports, 26, 271–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824090903293551 Botta, R. A. (2000). The mirror of television: A comparison of Black and White adolescents’ body image. Journal of Communication, 50, 144–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/joc/50.3.144 Clarke, P. M., Murnen, S. K., & Smolak, L. (2010). Development and psychometric evaluation of a quantitative measure of fat talk. Body Image, 7, 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.09.006
Engeln-Maddox, R., Salk, R. H., & Miller, S. A. (2012). Assessing women’s negative commentary on their own bodies: A psychometric investigation of the Negative Body Talk Scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 162–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684312441593 Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202 Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x Gapinski, K. D., Brownell, K. D., & LaFrance, M. (2003). Body objectification and fat talk: Effects on emotion, motivation, and cognitive performance. Sex Roles, 48, 377–388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1023516209973 Garner, D. M. (2004). Eating Disorder Inventory – Third edition (EDI-3). Lutz. FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press. Heinberg, L. J., Thompson, J. K., & Stormer, S. (1995). Development and validation of the Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 17, 81–89. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/1098-108X(199501)17 Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 304–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.94.3.319 Jacobi, L., & Cash, T. F. (1994). In pursuit of the perfect appearance: Discrepancies among self-ideal percepts of multiple physical attributes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 379–396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j. 1559-1816.1994.tb00588.x Linder, D., Tantleff-Dunn, S., & Jentsch, F. (2012). Social comparison and the ‘circle of objectification. Sex Roles, 67, 222–235. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s11199-012-0175-x Martz, D. M., Petroff, A. B., Curtin, L., & Bazzini, D. G. (2009). Gender differences in fat talk among American adults: Results from the psychology of size survey. Sex Roles, 61, 34–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9587-7 McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The Objectified Body Consciousness Scale: Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 181–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1471-6402.1996.tb00467.x Nichter, M. (2000). Fat talk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. O’Brien, K. S., Caputi, P., Minto, R., Peoples, G., Hooper, C., Kell, S., & Sawley, E. (2009). Upward and downward physical appearance comparisons: Development of scales. Body Image, 6, 201–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.03.003 Ousley, L., Cordero, E. D., & White, S. (2008). Fat talk among college students: How undergraduates communication regarding food and body weight, shape and appearance. Eating Disorders, 16, 73–84. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/10640260701773546 Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect sizes measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16, 93–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022658 Ridolfi, D. R., Myers, T. A., Crowther, J. H., & Ciesla, J. A. (2011). Do appearance focused cognitive distortions moderate the relationship between social comparisons to peers and media images and body image disturbance? Sex Roles, 65, 491–505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9961-0 Rodin, J., Silberstein, L., & Striegel-Moore, R. (1985). Women and weight: A normative discontent. In T. B. Sonderegger (Ed.), Psychology and gender (Vol. 32) Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 37–267). Lincoln: University of Nebraska. Salk, R. H., & Engeln-Maddox, R. (2011). If you’re fat, then I’m humongous!: Frequency, content, and impact of fat talk among college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 18–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684310384107 Sharpe, H., Naumann, U., Treasure, J., & Schmidt, U. (2013). Is fat talking a causal risk factor for body dissatisfaction? A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 46, 643–652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.22151 Thompson, J. K., Heinberg, L. J., Altabe, M., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (1999). Exacting beauty: Theory, assessment, and treatment of body image disturbance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10312-000
