Content uploaded by Sally A. Radell
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sally A. Radell on Apr 01, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
47
Original Article
Sally A. Radell, M.F.A., M.A., directs the Dance Program and Daniel D. Adame,
Ph.D., M.S.P.H., teaches health education in the Department of Health, Physical
Education and Dance, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. Steven P. Cole, Ph.D., is
the director of Research Design Associates, Inc., Yorktown Heights, New York.
Correspondence: Sally A. Radell, M.F.A., M.A., Dance Program, Department of
Health, Physical Education and Dance, 115 Rich Building, Emory University,
Atlanta, Georgia 30322.
Abstract
This study investigated the effect of
teaching with mirrors on the Body-Areas
Satisfaction component of body image
and dance performance of female college
ballet dancers. With the same instructor
in two beginning ballet classes, 15 females
were taught using mirrors and 15 females
were taught without mirrors. Subjects
completed the Cash 69-item Multidimen
-
sional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire
(MBSRQ) during the first and last week
of classes of a 14-week semester to mea
-
sure body image. Dance instructors used
the Radell Evaluation Scale for Dance
Technique to assess students’ performance
of the same adagio and allegro phrases
danced during the fifth and fourteenth
week of the semester. For the non-mirror
class, there was a significant increase in
adagio performance scores and a trend in
-
crease in allegro performance scores from
pretest to posttest. Significant increases in
adagio and allegro scores were not shown
for the mirror class. Higher performing
students, performing without the presence
of the mirror, had increased Body-Areas
Satisfaction scores on the MBSRQ. How
-
ever, the higher performing students in
the mirror class had decreased Body-Areas
Satisfaction scores. ese results suggest
that the use of the mirror in a beginning
ballet classroom may negatively affect the
skill acquisition of the dancer and may
contribute to the low body image scores
of higher performing dancers.
B
ody image is the perception we
have of our body; it is our body
concept.
1,2
A dancer’s personal
vision of their body image is an impor-
tant component of her psychological
health and well being and can help
or hinder their performance in the
classroom. A review of the literature
on body image and ballet has shown
that the study of ballet may negatively
influence ballet dancers’ body image
(i.e., heightening self-attention, self-
focus or self-consciousness). Bettle
and colleagues,
3
for example, com-
pared a group of adolescent female
ballet dancers with a comparison
group of non-dancers and found that
the dancers scored higher than the
non-dancers on questions indicating
feelings of undesirability for person
-
ality and unattractiveness for body.
In a similar study, Brooks-Gunn and
Warren
4
compared the body image
scores of girls attending national ballet
company schools with non-dancing
girls who attended private schools.
e researchers found that the on-
time maturing dancers’ body image
scores were lower than the body im
-
age scores of the on-time maturing
non-dancing students. Similarly, the
research of Pierce and Daleng
5
and
Druss and Silverman
6
corroborated
the incidence of body image distor-
tion among professionally-focused
ballet dancers.
e use of mirrors as a teaching tool
has long been a tradition in ballet. To
our knowledge only two studies have
addressed how the mirror affects the
learning environment of dancers. Radell
and associates
7
investigated the effect of
mirrors on the body image of female
dancers enrolled in college beginning
ballet classes during the course of a
14-week academic semester. Using the
Cash
8
69-item Multidimensional Body-
Self-Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ),
they found that the use of mirrors in
teaching may have contributed to low
Body-Areas Satisfaction scores among
the dancers. e Body-Areas Satisfaction
Subscale (BASS) of the Cash MBSRQ
assesses satisfaction or dissatisfaction
with discrete aspect of one’s body areas.
In a more recent study, Radell and co
-
workers
9
investigated the use of mirrors
on ballet classroom performance. Using
the Radell Evaluation Scale for Dance
Technique (RESDT), which was de
-
signed to examine technical performance
growth in the classroom, they reported
that the use of mirrors in ballet instruc
-
tion might have harmed the technical
skill acquisition of the dancers in the
classroom setting.
e Impact of Mirrors on Body Image and
Classroom Performance in Female College Ballet
Dancers
Sally A. Radell, M.F.A., M.A., Daniel D. Adame, Ph.D., M.S.P.H., and Steven P. Cole, Ph.D.
Journal of Dance Medicine & Science48 Volume 8, Number 2, 2004
Research with non-dancers links the
use of the mirror to a heightened sense
of self-consciousness, thus creating an
impact on one’s body image. Carver
and Scheier
10
investigated the effect of
mirrors on the self-consciousness of
79 female non-dancers and found that
the mirrors heightened their subjects’
self-awareness resulting in increased
self-attention or self-focus. In other
words, the mirrors were instrumental
in manipulating self-awareness by
drawing direct attention to the self
(private self-consciousness) as when,
for example, individuals are aware
they are being noticed by others or are
aware of an audience. Martin Ginis
and colleagues
11
found that exercise
performed in front of mirrors had a
negative effect on the feeling states
of sedentary women non-dancers.
Although the body image concerns
of the women did not moderate the
effects of the mirror intervention,
women with greater body image con
-
cerns experienced increases in physical
appearance anxiety regardless of their
exercise condition. Martin Ginis and
colleagues
11
hypothesized the negative
effects of mirrors within the frame-
work of the Objective Self-Awareness
eory of Duval and Wicklund.
12
is
theory posits that a state of heightened
self-awareness can be created when
an object in one’s environment, like
a mirror, focuses an individuals’ at
-
tention on one’s self. is state of
self-awareness causes the individual to
compare one’s self to ideals presented
in the environment. In a ballet class,
this could be other students’ perfor
-
mances or a teacher’s demonstration.
If the student feels she is not matching
the ideal characteristics presented to
her, then negative self-evaluation may
result.
Other research has shown a rela
-
tionship between body image and
performance. Dasch
13
studied 33
female and male undergraduates en-
rolled in modern dance, social dance,
square dance, tap, and jazz. Dancers
with higher body cathexis,
14
that is,
Body-Areas Satisfaction, were judged
by dance instructors to have better
dance posture and technique. In a
study of 112 weight-lifting males,
Tucker
15
found that psychological
traits, especially body cathexis, were
significant predictors of physical per
-
formance in weight training. More
recently, Nowicki and associates
16
found that prediction of college stu-
dents’ physical fitness performance
varied depending on the value placed
on their body image, locus of control,
their gender, and whether they were
tested by a same-sex or an opposite-
sex examiner. However, none of
these studies focused on the dance
performance of ballet dancers.
Performance among ballet dancers
is founded on dance experience. In
beginning ballet dance classes, there
are often students who have had
some previous dance experience. As
students develop, they acquire the
skills with which to evaluate and
finely tune their performance. Ac
-
cordingly, Kimmerle and Côté-Lau-
rence
17
noted that dancers develop
their ability to see and evaluate their
movement performance based on
their dance experience. One of the
aims of this study was to assess dance
performance. To achieve this goal,
the RESDT was used to access class
-
room technical growth in movement
performance and is described in the
methods section below.
This study investigated the effect
of teaching with mirrors on body
image and dance performance of
female collegiate beginning ballet
dancers. To achieve this goal, the
following research questions where
addressed:
1. Is there a difference in dance
performance for dancers taught
in a classroom with mirrors versus
dancers taught in a classroom
without mirrors?
2. Is there a difference in body im
-
age for dancers taught in a class-
room with mirrors versus dancers
taught in a classroom without
mirrors?
3. Is the effect of teaching with mir
-
rors on body image different for
dancers with low scores on the
RESDT versus dancers with high
scores on the RESDT?
Question 1 is essentially a replication
of Radell and colleagues
9
and, based
on their results, we hypothesized that
the performance of dancers in the
non-mirror class would improve to a
greater degree than the performance of
dancers in the mirror class. Question
2 is a replication of Radell and associ
-
ates
7
and, based on their results, we
hypothesized that the body image of
dancers in the non-mirror class would
be higher at the end of the semester
than the body image of dancers in the
mirror class. is is the first empirical
study investigating changes in body
image and performance measures for
the same dancers. Because of the lack
of research regarding the relationship
of body image and dance performance
in mirrored versus non-mirrored
teaching environments, it was difficult
to formulate directional hypotheses
about the results of the current inves
-
tigation for Question 3. In general,
better body image has been associated
with better physical performance for
non-dancers.
13,15
Method
Participants
Fifteen females enrolled in a begin
-
ning ballet class were taught using
mirrors and a second group of 15 fe
-
males also enrolled in a beginning bal-
let class were taught without mirrors.
Students did not have to fulfill specific
body-type or weight requirements for
enrollment. e classes were taught
within a liberal arts college curricu
-
lum at a medium-sized university in
a suburb of a large southeastern U.S.
city. Motives for taking these classes
included personal enjoyment, to earn
physical education elective credit, or
to earn credit toward either the dance
major or minor degree.
Evaluators
e three evaluators scoring the danc-
ers were full-time dance faculty at the
university where the study was con
-
ducted. e evaluators held the same
terminal degree in the field of dance
(Master of Fine Arts) and were primar
-
ily modern dancers who had studied
ballet as a secondary technique since
childhood. All three faculty members
had taught beginning ballet at the col
-
Journal of Dance Medicine & Science 49Volume 8, Number 2, 2004
lege level for a minimum of five to a
maximum of fifteen years.
Procedure
Informed Consent
Before any testing instruments were
administered, all participants signed
informed consent documents to indi
-
cate willingness to take part in a study
that examined different methodolo
-
gies for teaching ballet. e Institu-
tional Review Board of the university
approved all aspects of the study.
Body Image
Students completed the Cash 69-item
Multidimensional Body Self-Rela
-
tions Questionnaire (MBSRQ) during
the first and last classes of a 14-week
semester. e MBSRQ is a 69-item
standardized, attitudinal assessment of
body-image and weight-related vari
-
ables with acceptable reliability and
validity in a number of settings.
18-20
Of the 10 body-image scales, the most
salient scale to assess the effects of mir
-
rors on body image is the Body-Areas
Satisfaction Scale (BASS). e BASS
(8 items) measures body image evalu
-
ation as satisfaction to dissatisfaction
with discrete body parts or features.
Subjects were asked to rate how satis
-
fied they were with areas or aspects of
their body (such as face, lower torso,
and muscle tone) using a scale rang
-
ing from 1 to 5 (where 1 indicated
very dissatisfied and 5 very satisfied).
We selected the BASS because of its
demonstrated reliability and valid
-
ity,
21,22
and because the scale focuses
on discrete body areas known to be
of concern to dancers.
23
Cronbach
alpha coefficients for Body-Areas
Satisfaction reported by Adame and
colleagues
24
were .69 and .86 for col-
lege females and males, respectively.
Martin Ginis and associates
11
also
used the BASS as a measure of body
image in their study on the impact of
mirrors on exercising women.
Performance Evaluation
Performance evaluation was assessed
via the Radell Evaluation Scale for
Dance Technique (RESDT), which
was specifically designed for the
study to measure technical growth
in the performance of classroom ma
-
terial throughout the semester. e
RESDT includes both a videotape
experience and resultant observa
-
tion score made by evaluators of the
students’ performance of the same
adagio and allegro phrases during
the fifth and fourteenth week of a
14-week semester. An adagio phrase
is a series of slow and successive dance
movements that frequently highlight
a dancer’s alignment, balance, and
strength. A grand allegro phrase is a
series of quick and elevated large steps
that frequently focuses on a dancer’s
mastery of weight change, movement
flow, and rhythmic accuracy. At the
end of the semester three ballet teach
-
ers viewed the videotapes for both
classes and completed the RESDT
for each dancer. e instructor of
the course served as one of the three
evaluators. The other two evalua
-
tors were experimentally blind and
had no knowledge of which was the
mirror or non-mirror class during
the evaluation process. Following
RESDT guidelines, the evaluators
were instructed to choose a score for
each dancer ranging from 1 (low skill
level) to 5 (high skill level) for both
the adagio and allegro phrases. e
teachers first evaluated two students
at both skill level extremes to assure
the validity of the evaluation criteria.
ey then shared information on how
each rating was chosen. After this step
they independently rated the perfor
-
mance of each dancer for the adagio
and allegro phrases. The teachers
selected a score for each phrase that
corresponded with their view of the
dancer’s performance based on a com
-
pilation of the four selected criteria.
ese criteria were:
1. Rhythmic accuracy;
2. Ease and flow of movement;
3. Mastery of steps and
4. Alignment.
None of these criteria were considered
in isolation but rather they were col
-
lectively taken into account by each
evaluator when assigning a score for
each dancer’s performance of either
the adagio or allegro phrase. A mean
performance score was calculated for
each dancer on both the adagio and
allegro phrase by using the three scores
each evaluator assigned each dancer
for a given phrase. Both classes were
taught by the same instructor and re
-
ceived the same curricular instruction
for 2.5 hours each week.
Radell and coworkers
9
in a 2003
study reported high inter-rater reli-
ability for the RESDT instrument
using two evaluators and a sample
of 27 collegiate beginning ballet stu
-
dents. e intra-class correlations for
adagio and allegro scores were .95 (p <
.001) and .91 (p < .001) respectively.
e Pearson correlation coefficients
for adagio and allegro scores were .91
(p < .001) and .84 (p < .001) respec
-
tively.
Results
Inter-rater reliabilities between the
three ballet teachers were excellent.
e intra-class correlations for adagio
and allegro scores were .95 (p < .001)
and .93 (p < .001), respectively. e
Pearson correlation coefficients for
adagio scores were .88 (p < .001), .85
(p < .001), and .87 (p < .001). e
correlation coefficients for allegro
scores were .90 (p < .001), .87 (p <
.001), and .89 (p < .001).
Preliminary t-tests for independent
samples revealed no age difference be
-
tween the mirror class (Mean: 19.85;
SD: 1.38) and the non-mirror class
(Mean: 20.58; SD: 1.66), p = .20, and
no difference in the number of years
of prior ballet experience between the
mirror class (Mean: 1.07; SD: 1.53)
and the non-mirror class (Mean: 1.07;
SD: 1.71), p = 1.00.
Performance With and Without
Mirrors
Means and standard deviations at
pretest and posttest for the mirror
and non-mirror class are presented
in Table 1. ere were no differences
in pretest means between classes for
adagio or allegro scores as assessed
by t-tests for independent samples.
A 2 (pretest, posttest) x 2 (mir
-
ror, non-mirror) repeated measures
analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
conducted separately for adagio and
allegro measures. For adagio scores,
Journal of Dance Medicine & Science50 Volume 8, Number 2, 2004
there was a statistically significant
interaction: the increase in mean test
scores from pretest to posttest was
larger for the non-mirror class than
for the mirror class. Adagio scores
increased 36.0% for the non-mirror
class from pretest to posttest and in
-
creased 6.7% for the mirror class, F(1,
28) = 8.62, p = .007, eta squared =
0.24. Simple effects analysis revealed
that the increase for the non-mirror
class was statistically significant (p
< .001) while the increase for the
mirror class was not significant (p =
.310). For allegro scores, there was
a non-significant interaction trend.
Allegro scores increased 22.5% for
the non-mirror class from pretest to
posttest and increased 4.0% for the
mirror class, F(1, 28) = 3.02, p = .093,
eta squared = 0.10. Simple effects
analysis revealed that the increase for
the non-mirror class was statistically
significant (p < .01) while the increase
for the mirror class was not significant
(p = .625). In summary, adagio scores
were significantly higher for dancers
taught without mirrors and there was
a trend for allegro scores to be higher
for dancers taught without mirrors.
Body Image With and Without
Mirrors
ere were no differences in pretest
means between classes for Body-Areas
Satisfaction scores as assessed by t-tests
for independent samples. A 2 (pretest,
posttest) x 2 (mirror, non-mirror)
repeated measures ANOVA revealed
a non-significant trend for the interac
-
tion: there was 4.3% increase in mean
test scores from pretest to posttest
for the non-mirror class while there
was a 3.2% decrease for the mirror
class, F(1, 28) = 3.80, p = .061, eta
squared = 0.12. In summary, there
was a non-significant trend for Body-
Areas Satisfaction scores to increase
for dancers taught without mirrors
and to decrease for dancers taught
with mirrors.
Body-Areas Satisfaction and
Performance Differences
To further assess changes in Body-
Areas Satisfaction scores, dancers were
categorized as high performers or low
performers based on their pretest per
-
formance scores. Dancers who scored
in the top half of their class for pretest
adagio and allegro performance were
classified as high performers. Dancers
who scored in the bottom half of their
class for adagio and allegro perfor
-
mance were classified as low perform-
ers. Means and standard deviations
at pretest and posttest for the mirror
and non-mirror class by performance
group are presented in Table 2. A 2
(pretest, posttest) x 2 (mirror, non-
mirror) repeated measures ANOVA
for Body-Areas Satisfaction scores
was conducted separately for low and
high performers. For high performers,
there was a statistically significant in-
teraction: Body-Areas Satisfaction in-
creased 16.4% from pretest to posttest
for the non-mirror class while there
was a 4.2% decrease in scores for the
mirror class, F(1, 11) = 5.60, p = .04,
eta squared = .34. For the high per
-
formers in the non-mirror class, none
of the dancers exhibited a decrease
in Body-Areas Satisfaction scores.
However, for the high performers in
the mirror class, 63% of the dancers
exhibited a decrease in Body-Areas
Satisfaction scores. There were no
differences in Body-Areas Satisfaction
scores between the non-mirror and
mirror classes for low performers. For
the non-mirror class low performers,
scores increased 0.1% from pretest
to posttest. For the mirror class low
performers, scores decreased 2.1%
from pretest to posttest.
Pearson correlation coefficients be-
tween Body-Areas Satisfaction scores
and dance performance scores were
not statistically significant. For pretest
mirror class dancers the correlations
for adagio and allegro were -.09 and
-.11, respectively. For the pretest non-
mirror class, the correlations were .03,
and -.03. For the posttest mirror class,
the correlations were -.02 and .02.
For the posttest non-mirror class, the
correlations were .03 and -.03.
In summary, for dancers with high
scores on the RESDT, Body-Areas
Satisfaction scores increased for the
dancers in the non-mirror class and
decreased for dancers in the mirror
class. ere were no Body-Areas Sat
-
isfaction differences between classes
for dancers with low scores on the
RESDT.
Discussion
Performance With and Without
Mirrors
For the non-mirror class, there was
a significant increase in adagio per
-
Table 1 Performance Measures by Class (Mean and Standard Deviation)
Mirror Class Non-Mirror Class
(N = 15) (N = 15)
Performance Scores Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
Adagio 2.69 (1.20) 2.87 (1.22) 2.36 (0.99) 3.20 (1.06)
Allegro 2.76 (1.25) 2.87 (1.29) 2.58 (1.07) 3.16 (1.17)
Table 2 Mean and Standard Deviation for Body Image by Class and
Pretest Performance
Body-Areas Satisfaction
N Pretest Posttest
Mirror Class
Low Performance 7 3.34 (0.34) 3.27 (0.30)
High Performance 8 3.31 (0.60) 3.17 (0.87)
Non-Mirror Class
Low Performance 10 3.53 (0.65) 3.56 (0.53)
High Performance 8 3.35 (0.49) 3.90 (0.54)
Journal of Dance Medicine & Science 51Volume 8, Number 2, 2004
formance scores and a trend increase
in allegro performance scores from
pretest to posttest. e increase for
the mirror class for adagio scores was
significantly less than for the non-
mirror class. The increase for the
mirror class for allegro scores was not
significantly different from the non-
mirror class increase. e mirror class
increases for adagio and allegro scores
were small and not significant. is is
consistent with the findings of Radell
and colleagues
9
who in 2003, also
using the RESDT and a comparable
group of beginning ballet students, re
-
ported a significant increase in adagio
scores and a trend increase in allegro
scores for the non-mirror class. As
Radell and colleagues
9
hypothesized,
the use of the mirror was distracting
and may have inhibited the dancers’
ability to focus more internally on
the performance of the phrase and
thus resulted in less performance
improvement. It should also be noted
that since allegro phrases are quick
and lively, there tends to be less time
to fully use the mirror as a feedback
tool. An adagio phrase, in contrast,
is a slow and successive phrase with
generally more opportunity for mir-
ror interaction. Perhaps there was a
greater opportunity for the mirror to
inhibit growth in the adagio phrase.
is possibility was supported by the
large and significant improvement in
performance for the non-mirror class
in the adagio phrase.
Body Image With and Without
Mirrors
A non-significant trend for the effects
of the mirror intervention and Body-
Areas Satisfaction over the course of
the semester provided some support
for our second hypothesis. There
was an increase in mean test scores
for the non-mirror class while there
was a decrease for the mirror class.
Even though these results were not
statistically significant, there was a
clear trend that was consistent with
Radell and associates
7
who found that
the use of mirrors in teaching begin-
ning ballet may have contributed to
low Body-Areas Satisfaction scores
among dancers. In addition, the aver
-
age number of years of previous dance
experience in our study was less than
those in the Radell and associates
7
study. It is possible that, because of
the decreased dance experience, the
sample of dancers in our study was
less critical of their bodies.
Body-Areas Satisfaction and
Performance Differences
Although a few studies
13,15
that ex-
plored the relationship between body
cathexis (Body-Areas Satisfaction) and
performance found that better body
cathexis was associated with better
performance, we found no correlation
of increased body image with better
performance. However, we did find
that higher performing students,
performing without the presence of
the mirror, had increased Body-Areas
Satisfaction scores, whereas, the high
performing students in the mirror
class had decreased Body-Areas Satis
-
faction scores.
e high performing students in
the non-mirror class may have had
a strong and positive sense of their
bodies and the absence of a mirror
therefore allowed them to fully focus
on their kinesthetic abilities, which
resulted in greater body-areas satisfac
-
tion. No high performing students
in the non-mirror class exhibited a
decrease in their Body-Areas Satisfac
-
tion score. In turn, perhaps the high
performers in the mirror class were
distracted from trusting their physi
-
cal selves and this, in turn, resulted
in 63% of the mirror class dancers
feeling less satisfied with their body
areas.
According to Kimmerle and Cote-
Laurence,
17
experienced dancers, or
higher performing students, develop
their abilities to observe and evaluate,
and thus fine-tune their performance
over time. Hence, as they gaze into the
mirror they may become more criti
-
cal of their performance as reflected
in Duval and Wicklund’s Theory
of Objective Self-Awareness which
states that mirrors can be influential
in heightening self-awareness and
self-evaluation. Within mirrored
classrooms then, dancers may be pre
-
occupied with comparing themselves
with other dancers, their instructors,
or some ideal presented to them
within the learning context. e danc
-
ers’ rehearsing in the non-mirrored
classroom, on the other hand, can
make no such comparisons, so they
are presumable free from using the
mirror as a form of negative impact.
Conclusions
These results support the work of
Carver and Scheier
10
who found
that mirrors heightened the self-con-
sciousness of women college students
and the work of Martin Ginis and
coworkers
11
who found that exercise
in front of a mirror caused sedentary
women to feel worse about themselves
than their counterparts who exercised
without a mirror. Our results also are
consistent with previous literature that
associates body image disturbances
with the study of ballet.
3-6
e cur-
rent study’s results also replicate the
findings of Radell and colleagues
7
who found that the use of mirrors
in teaching beginning ballet classes
may contribute to lower Body-Areas
Satisfaction scores. e results of our
study also indicate that the use of
mirrors in the teaching of beginning
ballet classes may negatively affect
classroom performance. Our find
-
ings are consistent with Duval and
Wicklund’s Objective Self-Awareness
eory
12
and the potential negative
effects of mirrors. Further exploration
of variables that allow for the most ef
-
fective learning environments for the
study of dance will only enhance the
effectiveness of training in the profes
-
sion with the ultimate goal to improve
dancers’ body image, well-being, and
performance.
References
1. Adame DD, Frank RE, Serdula MK,
Cole SP, Abbas MA: e relationship
of self-perceived weight to actual
weight, body image, and health be
-
haviors of college freshmen. Wellness
Perspectives: eory, Research and
Practice 7:31-40, 1990.
2. Schilder PF: e Image and Appear
-
ance of the Human Body. New York:
International Universities Press,
1950.
3. Bettle N, Bettle O, Neumarker U,
Journal of Dance Medicine & Science52 Volume 8, Number 2, 2004
Neumarker KJ: Body image and self-
esteem in adolescent ballet dancers.
Perceptual and Motor Skills 93:297-
309, 2001.
4. Brooks-Gunn J, Warren MP: e
effects of delayed menarche in dif
-
ferent contexts: Dance and nondance
students. Journal of Youth and Ado
-
lescence 14:285-300, 1985.
5. Pierce EF, Daleng ML: Distortion
of body image among elite female
dancers. Perceptual and Motor Skills
87:769-770, 1998.
6. Druss RG, Silverman JA: Body im
-
age and perfectionism of ballerinas.
General Hospital Psychiatry 1:115-
121, 1979.
7. Radell SA, Adame DD, Cole SP: Ef
-
fect of teaching with mirrors on body
image and locus of control in women
college ballet dancers. Perceptual and
Motor Skills 95:1239-1247, 2002.
8. ompson JK, Penner LA, Altabe
MN: Procedures, problems, and
progress in the assessment of body
images. In: Cash TF, Pruzinsky T
(eds): Body Images: Development,
Deviance, and Change. New York:
Guilford, 1990, pp. 21-48.
9. Radell SA, Adame DD, Cole SP:
e effect of teaching with mirrors
on ballet dance performance. Percep
-
tual and Motor Skills 97:960-964,
2003.
10. Carver CS, Scheier MF: Self-focusing
effects of dispositional self-conscious
-
ness, mirror presence, and audience
presence. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 36:324-332,
1978.
11. Martin Ginis KA, Jung ME, Gauvin
L: To see or not to see: Effects of
exercising in mirrored environments
on sedentary women’s feeling states
and self-efficacy. Health Psychology
22(4):354-361, 2003.
12. Duval S, Wicklund RA: A eory of
Objective Self-Awareness. New York:
Academic Press, 1972.
13. Dasch CS: Relation of dance skills
to body cathexis and locus of control
orientation. Perceptual and Motor
Skills 46:465-466, 1978.
14. Secord PF, Jourard SM: e appraisal
of body-cathexis: Body-cathexis and
the self. Journal of Consulting Psy
-
chology 17:343-347, 1953.
15. Tucker LA: Trait psychology and
performance: A credulous viewpoint.
Journal of Human Movement Stud
-
ies 10:53-62, 1984.
16. Nowicki S Jr, Adame DD, Johnson
TC, Cole SP: Physical fitness as a
function of psychological and situ
-
ational factors. e Journal of Social
Psychology 13(5):549-558, 1997.
17. Kimmerle M, Côté-Laurence P
:
Teaching Dance Skills: A Motor Learn
-
ing and Development Approach. An
-
dover, New Jersey: J. Michael Ryan
Publishing, Inc., 2003, p. 71.
18. Cash TF, Brown TA: Gender and
body images: Stereotypes and reali
-
ties. Sex Roles 21:361-373, 1989.
19. Cash TF, Henry PE: Women’s body
images: e results of a national sur
-
vey in the U.S.A. Sex Roles 33:19-28,
1995.
20. Cash TF: The multidimensional
body-self relations questionnaire
user’s manual. Available from the
author, Old Dominion University,
Norfolk, Virginia.
21. Adame DD, Radell SA, Johnson TC,
Cole SP: Physical fitness, body im
-
age, and locus of control in college
women dancers and non-dancers.
Perceptual and Motor Skills 72:91-
95, 1991.
22. Radell SA, Adame DD, Johnson
TC, Cole SP: Dance experiences
associated with body-image and
personality among college students:
A comparison of dancers and non-
dancers. Perceptual and Motor Skills
77:507-513, 1993.
23. Kimmerle M, Côté-Laurence P,
2003, pp. 14-15.
24. Adame DD, Johnson TC, Cole SP:
Body image and physical fitness as
a function of locus of control and
gender in college women and men,
2000. Unpublished data.
