Article

Prevalence and magnitude of body weight and shape dissatisfaction among university students.

Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, 351A Martha Van Rensselaer Hall, Ithaca, New York 14853, United States.
Eating Behaviors (Impact Factor: 1.58). 01/2008; 8(4):429-39. DOI: 10.1016/j.eatbeh.2007.03.003
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Although prevalence of overweight and obesity is increasing, prevailing sociocultural influences lead females to desire a thin body and males a muscular body, often resulting in body dissatisfaction (BD) because many cannot achieve the cultural ideal. This study examined the magnitude of BD in university undergraduates (n=310). Body weight dissatisfaction (BWD) was measured as the difference between current and idealized body weight; body shape dissatisfaction (BSD) as the difference between and current and idealized body shape. Overall, females expressed greater BD than males. Overweight individuals expressed the greatest BWD and BSD, yet half desired a weight that would maintain their overweight body mass index (BMI) classification. Normal weight females desired a slightly thinner, lighter body, while desires among normal weight males were mixed. Underweight females and normal weight males expressed little BWD and BSD, commonly idealizing a body weight maintaining their BMI classification. However, results may suggest a shift in body size ideals in an era of prevalent obesity, with overweight males and females expressing less BD and few normal weight individuals, particularly females, idealizing a very thin body.

4 Followers
 · 
369 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Use of social media, such as Facebook, is pervasive among young women. Body dissatisfaction is also highly prevalent in this demographic. The present study examined the relationship between Facebook usage and body image concerns among female university students (N=227), and tested whether appearance comparisons on Facebook in general, or comparisons to specific female target groups (family members, close friends, distant peers [women one may know but do not regularly socialize with], celebrities) mediated this relationship. Results showed a positive relationship between Facebook usage and body image concerns, which was mediated by appearance comparisons in general, frequency of comparisons to close friends and distant peers, and by upward comparisons (judging one's own appearance to be worse) to distant peers and celebrities. Thus, young women who spend more time on Facebook may feel more concerned about their body because they compare their appearance to others (especially to peers) on Facebook. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Body image 11/2014; 12C:82-88. DOI:10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.10.004 · 2.19 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The main purpose of present study is determined the relationship between big five factors of personality and perfectionism (positive and negative) with body image. 373 persons of girls student of Alzahra University in BS participated. For measuring variables in this study used NEO-Five Factor Inventory, Farsi version of the Positive and Negative Perfectionism scale (FPANPS) and Body Image Concern Inventory(BICI). To examine reliability of measures, Cronbach's alpha coefficient were used. Analysis of the data involved both descriptive and inferential statistics including means, standard deviations, person's correlation coefficients and regression analysis. Results showed significant positive correlation between neurotism, agreeableness and openness with body image and also significant negative relation between conscientiousness and extraversion. The result also revealed that perfectionism (positive and negative) is the significant predictor for body image. It can be concluded that from factors of personality (consciousness and agreeable) and two dimension of perfectionism can predict the body image and its factors.
    Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 01/2011; 15:1015-1019. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.231
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The goal of this study was to identify the effect of the change in body mass index (BMI) from childhood to adulthood on body image satisfaction at 23 years of age in members of the 1982 Pelotas Birth Cohort in Pelotas, RS, Brazil. The study used data from the 1986 and 2004-5 follow-up studies. Body shape satisfaction was evaluated using the Stunkard scale. Body shape dissatisfaction was defined as the difference between the figures chosen for the current and ideal body size. BMI z-score changes were calculated as the difference between z-score values at 4 and 23 years of age, using the population internal z-score as standard. The analysis was stratified by sex, and multinomial logistic regression was used in crude and adjusted analyses. A total of 1963 men and 1739 women were analyzed. The mean age of the participants in 2004-5 was 22.7 years. Of the participants exhibiting increased BMI z-scores, 17% perceived themselves as thinner than ideal, whereas 48% perceived themselves as fatter than ideal. The prevalence of dissatisfaction was higher in women because they perceived themselves as fatter than ideal on the three categories of z-score change (≥ + 0.5 sd; -0.49 to + 0.49 sd and ≤ -0.5 sd); 81% of women exhibiting an increased BMI z-score reported dissatisfaction. The analysis adjusted for confounding factors revealed that women with increased BMI z-scores were less prone to feel thinner than ideal. Additionally, the increased risk of dissatisfaction due to perceiving oneself as fatter than ideal was similar between men and women (RRR = 3.52 95% CI: 2.17 to 4.56 and RRR = 4.08 95% CI: 3.00 to 5.56, respectively) using -0.49 to +0.49 sd as the reference category. Individuals exhibiting increased BMI z-scores between 4 and 23 years of age reported higher risks of body dissatisfaction at 23 years of age. This finding is important because body dissatisfaction can cause psychological, social, self-esteem problems, and well-being.
    BMC Public Health 12/2015; 15(1):1579. DOI:10.1186/s12889-015-1579-7 · 2.32 Impact Factor