Content uploaded by Audrey McKinlay
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Audrey McKinlay on Aug 03, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
BRIEF REPORT
(Perceived) Size Really Does Matter: Male Dissatisfaction With Penis Size
Lucy Johnston and Tracey McLellan
University of Canterbury
Audrey McKinlay
University of Canterbury and Monash University
One hundred ten heterosexual individuals (67 men; 43 women) responded to questions related to penis
size and satisfaction. Men showed significant dissatisfaction with penile size, despite perceiving them-
selves to be of average size. Importantly, there were significant relationships between penile dissatis-
faction and comfort with others seeing their penis, and with likelihood of seeking medical advice with
regard to penile and/or sexual function. Given the negative consequences of low body satisfaction and
the importance of early intervention in sexually related illnesses (e.g., testicular cancer), it is imperative
that attention be paid to male body dissatisfaction.
Keywords: penis size, body dissatisfaction, sexual illnesses
Although the focus within the literature on body-image percep-
tion has been on women, men are also known to experience
dissatisfaction with their physical appearance (Cohane & Pope,
2001;Hildebrandt, Langenbucher, & Schlundt, 2004;Pope,
Philips, & Olivardia, 2000;Tiggemann, Martins, & Churchett,
2008), with recent estimates of male body dissatisfaction preva-
lence being between 17% and 82%, dependent on the body part
being considered (Tiggemann et al., 2008). Indeed, for muscular-
ity, this discontent has become normative (Tiggemann et al.,
2008). Body image dissatisfaction among men has been linked to
low self-esteem and depression (e.g., Olivardia, Pope, Borowiecki
& Cohane, 2004) and impaired social relationships (e.g., Pope et
al., 2000).
The present research focuses on perceptions of penis size. There
is considerable anxiety among men in regard to penis size, with
between 45% (Lever, Frederick, & Peplau, 2006) and 68% (Tigge-
mann et al., 2008) reporting discontent with their penis size,
preferring it were larger. In many cultures, the penis symbolizes
attributes of masculinity, virility, and fertility (Wylie & Eardley,
2007). Indeed, in some cultures, a man’s penis is described as “his
manhood,” and anxiety accordingly arises when men equate man-
hood and masculinity with penis size (Kilmartin, 2000). It is not
surprising, then, that men often attach great importance to the size
of their penis and associate a larger penis with attributes such as
strength, dominance, power, and the capacity to love and be loved
(Wylie & Eardley, 2007). Men with a larger penis have a more
positive genital image, body image, and feel more sexually com-
petent (Francken, van de Wiel, Van Driel, & Weijmar Schultz,
2002;Winter, 1989). Further, the importance men place on penis
size has been shown to negatively predict appearance self-esteem
(Tiggemann et al., 2008). Concern about penis size may be linked
to sexual satisfaction and functioning (Ackard, Kearney-Cooke, &
Peterson, 2000;Faith & Schare, 1993) and have negative conse-
quences for relationships, as well as for physical and mental health
(Grov, Parsons, & Bimbi, 2010;Pope et al., 2000;Son, Lee, Huh,
Kim, & Paick, 2003).
There has been an increase in the number of men seeking
cosmetic procedures to increase penis size (Tiggemann et al.,
2008), indicating that at least some men are sufficiently worried
about their penis size to undergo costly and potentially risky
procedures. This increase coincides with popular media frequently
emphasizing the link between penis size, masculinity, and virility
(e.g., Frederick, Fessler, & Haselton, 2005;Lehman, 1993). There
has been an increase in accessibility of pornographic material that
may include “supersized” penises and exaggerated positive female
response to such, which may mislead men as to women’s prefer-
ences. It is noteworthy that men show a greater likelihood of
making size comparisons while viewing sexually explicit materials
(Lee, 1996). Internet marketing of penile enlargement medications
and techniques is now common, and there has been an increase in
spam e-mail messages focusing on penis size as a symbol of
masculinity and virility (Cukier, Cody, & Nesselroth, 2006). The
use of e-mail advertising heightens personal relevance; the mes-
sages arrive in a personal inbox, which implies that they are
targeted to the individual receiving them rather than simply being
general messages. Personalizing persuasive messages in this way
has been shown to increase the impact of the message on the
This article was published Online First February 10, 2014.
Lucy Johnston, Deputy Vice-Chancellor’s Office, and Tracey McLellan,
Department of Psychology, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New
Zealand; Audrey McKinlay, Department of Psychology, University of
Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, and School of Psychology and
Psychiatry, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
The authors thank Leila Marie, who was funded through a University of
Canterbury Summer Scholarship, for her contributions to the reported
research. TMW is thanked for his small contribution to the research.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lucy
Johnston, Dean of Postgraduate Research, University of Canterbury, Pri-
vate Bag 4800, Christchurch 8410, New Zealand. E-mail: lucy
.johnston@canterbury.ac.nz
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Psychology of Men & Masculinity © 2014 American Psychological Association
2014, Vol. 15, No. 2, 225–228 1524-9220/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0033264
225
recipient compared with general messages (e.g., Rogers & Mew-
born, 1976).
Young men are reluctant for others to see their penis (Wylie &
Eardley, 2007). As well as the potential negative consequence for
the development of social and sexual relationships, this reluctance
may also contribute to medical concerns. Of particular concern in
New Zealand are increased rates of testicular and prostate cancer
and the importance of early detection for effective treatments.
Early detection requires men to engage in self-examination and, if
needed, to overcome their reluctance for others (e.g., medical
practitioners) to see their penis (Wylie & Eardley, 2007). In the
present research, we investigate penis size dissatisfaction, and
whether there is a relationship between penis size dissatisfaction
and comfort with others seeing one’s penis and with health-related
behavior.
An important component of male dissatisfaction with penis size
is related to perceptions of female preferences (Winter, 1989;
Wylie & Eardley, 2007) and worry that their romantic partners are
dissatisfied with their penis size (e.g., Van Driel, Weijmar Schultz,
van de Wiel, & Mensink, 1998). Such anxieties are fueled by
advertisements for penile enlargement that focus on positive re-
sponses by women to their partners’ enhancements (e.g., Total Life
Enhancement, 2005) and may have a negative impact on sexual
relationships (e.g., Lever et al., 2006). To understand male dissat-
isfaction with penis size, it is important to identify whether men’s
beliefs and anxieties regarding female preferences are accurate or
not. Accordingly, a group of female participants was also included
in the present study to provide data regarding female beliefs and
preferences.
Method
Participants
One hundred ten heterosexual individuals (43 women; 67 men)
completed the questions on an online survey related to penis size.
1
Mean age of the total sample was 25 years 10 months (SD 6 years
11 months), with 81% self-identified as New Zealand European
(Pa
keha), and 54% had an undergraduate degree or higher.
Procedure and Measures
Participants were recruited, through advertisements on the uni-
versity campus and via word of mouth, to take part in a study on
male body image and self-esteem. Data were collected via an
anonymous online survey and there was no compensation for
participation. This project was reviewed and approved by the
University of Canterbury Human Ethics Committee.
For penis length and circumference, in both a flaccid and erect
state, the participant was asked to indicate current size (men only),
ideal size, average size, and what others (same sex; other sex)
would consider ideal size.
2
All measures were in centimeters (cm).
Male participants were asked a number of additional questions: (a)
the extent to which he would like a longer and thicker penis, the
extent to which he thought women would prefer a penis longer and
thicker than his, and how comfortable he felt about other men and
women seeing his penis (all items rated on a 7-point scale from 1
[not at all]to7[very much]); (b) to what extent he believed that
penis size can be altered by diet, drugs, or exercise (not at all/
somewhat/very much); (c) whether he used e-mail and, if so, the
percentage of spam mail received in the preceding 2 weeks that
was related to penis size or sexual performance; (d) whether he
engaged in testicular self-examination and whether he had ever
consulted a medical practitioner regarding penis size or sexual
function. Female participants completed only (b) and (c).
Results
Discrepancy Score: Erect Penis Length
A number of discrepancy scores
3
were computed for each male
participant, with a negative discrepancy score indicating the re-
spondent considered his current state to be less than ideal:
• Current size versus perceived ideal size
• Current size versus perceived average size
• Current size versus size thought own sex considered ideal
• Current size versus size thought other sex considered ideal
Except for current versus average length, mean discrepancy
scores were negative. Indeed, for the current-ideal discrepancy,
only two participants had a positive discrepancy score and 17 had
a zero discrepancy. Single-sample ttests comparing discrepancy
scores to zero (no dissatisfaction) revealed significant levels (p⬍
.05) of dissatisfaction for the current-ideal (M⫽⫺2.05; SD ⫽
2.25), current-ideal other men (M⫽⫺2.23; SD ⫽3.19), and
current-ideal women (M⫽⫺1.63; SD ⫽3.37) discrepancy score,
but not for the current-average score (M⫽.59; SD ⫽3.20).
Table 1 shows the estimates of penis length provided by both
men and women. Male estimates of their own and the average
length are consistent with population norms, whereas women
slightly underestimated length (Wylie & Eardley, 2007). Male
ideals were greater than population norms, and significantly higher
than those of female participants, which were similar to population
norms, F(1, 133) ⫽25.16, p⬍.0001, ŋ
2
⫽.159; Ms⫽18.47
versus 15.47. For average length, there was no significant sex
difference.
For estimates of ideal length a 2 (participant sex) ⫻2 (target
sex) ANOVA revealed a main effect of participant sex,
F(1, 132) ⫽36.86, p⬍.0001, ŋ
2
⫽.218, and a significant
participant Sex ⫻Target Sex interaction, F(1, 132) ⫽11.73, p⬍
.001, ŋ
2
⫽.082. Post hoc tests (Tukey, p⬍.05) showed no
difference in the estimates of male ideal length by male and female
participants (Ms⫽18.62 vs. 17.96), but that male estimates of
female ideal length were significantly larger than those made by
1
One hundred ninety-seven (96 female) participants partially completed
the whole survey. Partial completion of the survey results in differences in
the degrees of freedom in the reported analyses, but there were no sys-
tematic patterns in the unanswered questions across participants and these
were treated as missing values. Fifteen respondents who identified as
bisexual or homosexual were omitted due to low numbers and differences
in body image between heterosexual and homosexual men (Drummond &
Filiault, 2007).
2
Participants were also asked similar questions regarding height,
weight, and muscularity. Full details of these measures and the findings can
be obtained from the first author.
3
All four measures (penis length and circumference in a flaccid and
erect state) showed the same pattern of findings. Accordingly, details are
only provided for erect penis length. Full details of the other measures can
be obtained from the first author.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
226 JOHNSTON, MCLELLAN, AND MCKINLAY
female participants (Ms⫽18.01 vs. 15.78). There was no differ-
ence in the estimates by male participants of male and female ideal
length, but for women, the estimate for male ideal length was
significantly higher than that for female ideal length.
Mean ratings of the extent to which men would like a longer
penis, indicating that they would like a longer penis (M⫽4.47)
and believed that women would like them to have a longer penis
(M⫽4.58). There was a significant correlation between own
current-ideal discrepancy score and ratings of preference for a
longer penis, r(61) ⫽.581, p⬍.0001.
Penis Enlargement
Less than half of the participants believed that penis length
could not be altered by diet, exercise, or drugs (44% of male and
45% of female participants). A large proportion believed that there
was a possibility of such alteration in size (49% male; 44%
female), with a small percentage being sure that such alteration in
size was possible (7% male; 11% female). Those men who be-
lieved that penis enlargement was possible were, however, no
more or less likely to be dissatisfied with their own penis length.
Comfort With Others Seeing Penis
Mean ratings indicated a moderate level of comfort, but with
significantly higher comfort ratings for women than other men
seeing their penis, F(1, 61) ⫽79.73, p⬍.0001, ŋ
2
⫽.567; Ms⫽
4.98 versus 2.73. There were significant negative correlations
between comfort with other men seeing one’s penis and current-
ideal discrepancy, r(61) ⫽⫺.257, p⬍.001; desire for a longer
penis, r(66) ⫽⫺.482, p⬍.0001; and belief that women desire a
longer penis, r(66) ⫽⫺.316, p⬍.01. There was similarly a
negative correlation between comfort with women seeing their
penis and desire for a longer penis, r(66) ⫽⫺.471, p⬍.0001, and
with belief that women desire a longer penis, r(66) ⫽⫺.394, p⬍
.001.
Spam E-Mails
The mean estimate of the percentage of spam e-mail that was
related to penis size and/or sexual function was 25.07% (range 0 to
85%). There were no significant correlations between the percent-
age of spam e-mail and either ideal penis length, discrepancy
scores, or comfort with others seeing one’s penis.
Testicular Self-Examination and Medical Consultation
Of the 65 men who answered the question, only 22 (34%)
reported engaging in testicular self-examination. There were no
significant differences in the penis discrepancy scores or comfort
scores between those participants who did and did not engage in
testicular self-examination. Of the 62 male participants who an-
swered the question, only 10 (16%) indicated that they had con-
sulted a medical practitioner regarding penis size or sexual func-
tion. Those who had consulted a medical practitioner were more
comfortable with other men or women seeing their penis than
those who had not consulted a medical practitioner, F(1, 60) ⫽
4.02, p⬍.05, ŋ
2
⫽.045, Ms⫽3.70 versus 2.54, and F(1, 60) ⫽
4.52, p⬍.05, ŋ
2
⫽.070, Ms⫽5.90 versus 4.81. There was also
a marginally significantly higher current-ideal discrepancy score
than those who had not, F(1, 60) ⫽2.82, p⬍.10, ŋ
2
⫽.063.
Discussion
Our data indicate that men experience significant levels of
dissatisfaction related to penis size. Despite men seeing themselves
to be of average size, and their estimates of average size being
consistent with population norms (Wylie & Eardley, 2007), their
ideal size was larger. Men also believed that both other men, and
women, would prefer a penis longer than their own. Female
participants, however, indicated that they did not consider a larger
than average penis to be desirable; their ideal lengths were com-
parable with population norms. Women were, however, aware that
men desired a longer penis. This discrepancy between women’s’
desires and men’s perceptions of female desires is consistent with
past research on perceptions of male muscularity (Pope et al.,
2000) and may contribute to tension or discomfort in intimate
relationships (e.g., Lever et al., 2006). Anxiety over penis size
may, in part, be reduced by a greater awareness of female satis-
faction with average penis size and, accordingly, a reduction in the
association between penis size and cultural conceptualization of
manhood and muscularity (e.g., Pleck, 1995).
Of concern is the potential impact of this dissatisfaction on
behavior (Ackard et al., 2000;Faith & Schare, 1993). Somewhat
surprisingly, given the highly educated nature of the sample, over
half of the participants believed that there was at least some
possibility that penis length could be altered by diet, exercise, or
drugs. There has been a large increase in men with normal penis
length seeking cosmetic procedures to enlarge penis size (Mon-
daini et al., 2002), and the finding that discrepancy scores were
related to comfort with others seeing one’s penis may have neg-
ative implications for the development of social and sexual rela-
tionships (Lever et al., 2006), and for engagement with medical
practitioners. Only a small proportion of male participants in the
present study indicated that they engaged in testicular self-
examination or had consulted a medical practitioner regarding
penis size or sexual function.
4
It is important to encourage self-
examination and, when appropriate, medical consultation, and
hence to ensure that lack of comfort with others seeing one’s penis
is not an inhibitory factor—in the present study, those who had
consulted a medical practitioner had significantly higher comfort
levels with others seeing their penis than those who had not.
Our findings add to a growing body of research indicating the
importance of attention being paid to body dissatisfaction among
young men. This is especially important in a context in which there
4
It is acknowledged that the number of young men needing medical
consultation is low.
Table 1
Mean Estimates of Ideal Penis Length
Erect length (cm)
Male
participants
Female
participants
Perceived ideal length 18.47 15.47
Perceived average length 15.79 13.46
Perceived ideal by men 18.62 17.96
Perceived ideal by women 18.01 15.78
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
227
MALE SATISFACTION WITH PENIS SIZE
is increased exposure to messages (e.g., spam e-mail) encouraging
penis enlargement to increase relationship and sexual success.
References
Ackard, D. M., Kearney-Cooke, A., & Peterson, C. B. (2000). Effect of
body image and self-image on women’s sexual behaviors. International
Journal of Eating Disorders, 28, 422– 429. doi:10.1002/1098-
108X(200012)28:4⬍422::AID-EAT10⬎3.0.CO;2-1
Cohane, G. H., & Pope, H. G., Jr. (2001). Body image in boys: A review
of the literature. The International Journal of Eating Disorders, 29,
373–379.
Cukier, W. L., Cody, S., & Nesselroth, E. J. (2006). Genres of spam:
Expectations and deceptions. Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii Interna-
tional Conference on System Sciences, Vol. 3, p 51a.
Drummond, M. J. N., & Filiault, S. M. (2007). The long and short of it:
Gay men’s perceptions of penis size. Gay and Lesbian Issues and
Psychology Review, 3, 121–129.
Faith, M. S., & Schare, M. L. (1993). The role of body image in sexually
avoidant behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 22, 345–356. doi:
10.1007/BF01542123
Francken, A. B., van de Wiel, H. B. M., Van Driel, M. F., & Weijmar
Schultz, W. C. M. (2002). What importance do women attribute to size
of the penis? European Urology, 42, 426 – 431. doi:10.1016/S0302-
2838(02)00396-2
Frederick, D. A., Fessler, D. M. T., & Haselton, M. (2005) Do represen-
tations of male mascularity differ in men’s and women’s magazines?
Body Image, 2, 81– 86.
Grov, C., Parsons, J. T., & Bimbi, D. S. (2010). The association between
penis size and sexual health among men who have sex with men.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 788 –797. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-
9439-5
Hildebrandt, T., Langenbucher, J., & Schlundt, D. G. (2004). Muscularity
concerns among men: Development of attitudinal and perceptual mea-
sures. Body Image, 1, 169 –181. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2004.01.001
Kilmartin, C. T. (2000). The masculine self (2nd ed.). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Lee, P. A. (1996). Survey report: Concept of penis size. Journal of Sex and
Marital Therapy, 22, 131–135.
Lehman, P. (1993). Running scared: Masculinity and the representation of
the male body. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Lever, J., Frederick, D. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). Does size matter?
Men’s and women’s views on penis size across the lifespan. Psychology
of Men & Masculinity, 7, 129 –143. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.7.3.129
Mondaini, N., Ponchietti, R., Gontero, P., Muir, G. H., Natali, A., Di Loro,
F.,...&Rizzo, M. (2002). Penile length is normal in most men seeking
penile lengthening procedures. International Journal of Impotence Re-
search, 14, 283–286. doi:10.1038/sj.ijir.3900887
Olivardia, R., Pope, H. G., Jr., Borowiecki, J. J., III, & Cohane, G. H.
(2004). Biceps and body image: The relationship between muscularity
and self-esteem, depression, and eating disorder symptoms. Psychology
of Men & Masculinity, 5, 112–120. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.5.2.112
Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F.
Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 11–32).
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Pope, H. G., Jr., Philips, K. A., & Olivardia, R. (2000). The Adonis
complex: The secret crisis of male body obsession. New York, NY: The
Free Press.
Rogers, R. W., & Mewborn, C. R. (1976). Fear appeals and attitude
change: Effects of a threat’s noxiousness, probability of occurrence, and
the efficacy of coping responses. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 34, 54 – 61. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.34.1.54
Son, H., Lee, H., Huh, J. S., Kim, S. W., & Paick, J. S. (2003). Studies on
self-esteem of penile size in young Korean military men. Asian Journal
of Andrology, 5, 185–189.
Tiggemann, M., Martins, Y., & Churchett, L. (2008). Beyond muscles:
Unexplored parts of men’s body image. Journal of Health Psychology,
13, 1163–1172. doi:10.1177/1359105308095971
Total Life Enhancement. (2005a, February 14). Bigger is better. Los
Angeles Times, p D4. Testimonials. Retrieved from http://www
.totallifeenhancement.com
Van Driel, M. F., Weijmar Schultz, W. C. M., van de Wiel, H. B. M., &
Mensink, H. J. A. (1998). Surgical lengthening of the penis. British
Journal of Urology, 82, 81– 85. doi:10.1046/j.1464-410x.1998.00672.x
Winter, H. C. (1989). An examination of the relationships between penis
size and body image, genital image, and perception of sexual compe-
tency in the male. Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 1225.
Wylie, K. R., & Eardley, I. (2007). Penile size and the “small penis
syndrome.” BJU International, 99, 1449 –1455.
Received July 17, 2012
Revision received April 9, 2013
Accepted April 10, 2013 䡲
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
228 JOHNSTON, MCLELLAN, AND MCKINLAY
