Content uploaded by Megan A. Vendemia
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Megan A. Vendemia on May 30, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
1
Promoting Body Positivity Through Stories:
How Protagonist Body Size And Esteem Influence Readers’ Self-Concepts
Megan A. Vendemia1 & Melissa J. Robinson2
Chapman University1
Penn State Fayette, The Eberly Campus2
Corresponding Author
Megan A. Vendemia, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
School of Communication
Chapman University
1 University Drive
Orange, CA 92866
Email: vendemia@chapman.edu
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
2
Promoting Body Positivity Through Stories:
How Protagonist Body Size And Esteem Influence Readers’ Self-Concepts
Abstract
Through two experiments (N = 497), we documented how distinct portrayals of women in stories
can impact readers’ engagement in social comparisons and influence important aspects of their
self-concepts. Specifically, this research investigated the effects of character body size (thin vs.
large), body esteem (low vs. high), and story ending valence (sad vs. happy) with two distinct
storylines. Results indicated that high (vs. low) body esteem characters are not only rated more
aspirational, but also led readers with greater self-discrepancy to report lower state body image,
suggesting upward social comparison processes are at play. Further, results indicated that reading
about characters with large (vs. thin) bodies can positively affect readers’ body image; however,
this positive effect may be explained by downward social comparison. Findings highlight the
complexities of body appearance and confidence. Strategies for effectively promoting body
positivity via text-based interventions are discussed.
Keywords: body positive; body positivity; social comparison; self-discrepancy; media effects;
narratives
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
3
Promoting Body Positivity Through Stories:
How Protagonist Body Size And Esteem Influence Readers’ Self-Concepts
1. Introduction
Body image scholarship has long established that how women are portrayed in the mass
media can impact how individuals feel about themselves. Often, this research has focused on
how visual representations of thinness can lead women to internalize this body type as superior
and negatively affect their own body satisfaction (Grabe et al., 2008; Want, 2009). In response,
the body-positive movement has pushed back against the thin ideal (Sastre, 2014), urging to
change the dominant (unrealistic) beauty standards and encourage appreciation of marginalized
bodies. Recent research has examined how body-positive messages on social media influence
body image (e.g., Brathwaite & DeAndrea, 2022; Cohen, Fardouly, et al., 2019; Vendemia et al.,
2021), and the results have generally been positive, demonstrating improved mood, as well as
psychological and social well-being among women (e.g., Cohen, Fardouly, et al., 2019; Stevens
& Griffiths, 2020).
Despite these advances, there are several areas that warrant further attention, addressed in
the current study, to better understand the efficacy of body-positive content. First, although
research demonstrates exposure to larger bodies is linked to favorable outcomes (Cohen,
Fardouly, et al., 2019; Stevens & Griffiths, 2020), it is important to consider the processes
explaining such effects (see Rodgers et al., 2022). It could be that women, socialized to embrace
the thin-ideal, are downwardly socially comparing to women with larger bodies to feel better
about themselves (see Holmstrom, 2004), possibly complicating the intents of the body-positive
movement. Second, the body-positive movement has come under scrutiny for still focusing
attention on appearances and imagery that only slightly deviate from traditional mainstream
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
4
beauty ideals (e.g., thin, conventionally attractive women; Cohen, Irwin, et al., 2019; Lazuka et
al., 2020), rather than promoting body appreciation and esteem (i.e., positive body image). Body
esteem is a cornerstone of body positivity (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015); however, it is
difficult to disentangle or highlight body esteem with appearance-centric imagery.
Further research is needed to understand not only how exposure to women living in larger
bodies (compared to the thin ideal) can influence readers’ evaluations of others and their own
self-concepts but also the stories they tell in terms of projecting confidence and success. A key
challenge for body image scholars and practitioners is that it is difficult to convey an individual’s
psychological state, innermost thoughts, and experiences through imagery (see Green et al.,
2008). One way to overcome possible confounds with imagery and critiques regarding the body-
positive movement’s focus on specific appearances is through books (i.e., textual narratives),
which have received limited attention (e.g., Kaminski & Magee, 2013). Thus, the present study
considers how narratives can be used to promote body positivity through protagonist portrayals
that emphasize acceptance of larger body sizes and body esteem. The following sections review
relevant research on body positivity and then introduce social comparison theory (Festinger,
1954) and self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987) as possible explanatory frameworks for
effects of body-positive content.
1.1. Body-Positive Content and Body Positivity
The body-positive movement and body-positive content seek to deconstruct dominant
beauty ideals in efforts to promote positive body image. Tylka and Wood-Barcalow (2015)
define positive body image as a multifaceted construct characterized by body appreciation (i.e.,
functionality), body acceptance and love, broad conceptualization of beauty (e.g., personality,
self-confidence), self-care, inner positivity (i.e., projecting happiness), and protective filtration of
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
5
body-related information (e.g., media messages). Having a positive body image includes
expressing favorable opinions about one’s body weight and shape, engaging in healthy behaviors
to respect the body, and rejecting thin-ideal messages. Positive body image is also linked to
enhanced mental and physical health (see Tylka, 2019).
Some recent work has employed body-positive captions or text accompanying images to
portray the inner feelings of targets. For example, Davies et al. (2020) found that body-positive
captions on fitspiration (i.e., inspirational fitness messages) social media images led to greater
weight esteem and overall body esteem, relative to fitspiration and neutral captions. Another
study by Tiggemann et al. (2020) investigated body-positive captions on social media images
featuring thin and average-sized women and found that exposure to thin (vs. average-sized)
women resulted in greater body dissatisfaction and less body appreciation; however, body-
positive captions did not directly influence participants’ body image. Interestingly, a moderating
effect was found such that women high in thin-ideal internalization reported greater body
appreciation viewing average-sized women with body-positive captions but also indicated lower
body appreciation viewing thin-ideal images with body-positive captions.
This line of work suggests that women with average-sized or larger bodies expressing
favorable views about themselves may be more effective in combatting negative body image
effects, compared to thin women expressing similar views. Moreover, several experiments have
examined how exposure to different body sizes affects women’s body image (Bissell & Rask,
2010; Halliwell & Dittmar, 2004), particularly with recent research on social media (e.g., Cohen,
Fardouly, et al., 2019; Davies et al., 2020; Hendrickse et al., 2020; Tiggemann et al., 2020). Most
research establishes that images of larger bodies are effective in promoting body satisfaction and
psychological well-being, with few studies focusing specifically on text-based interventions
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
6
(e.g., narratives, captions, comments; Kaminski & Magee, 2013). For instance, one experiment
found that exposure to Instagram images of women with larger bodies (referred to as “body
positive”) increased participants’ mood, body satisfaction, body appreciation, and attitudes
toward body-positive content (Cohen, Fardouly, et al., 2019). Another experiment found women
who viewed plus-size models in advertisements experienced greater body satisfaction than
women who viewed thin models (Hendrickse et al., 2020).
Collectively, experimental findings and content analyses (Cohen, Irwin, et al., 2019;
Lazuka et al., 2020) indicate that body-positive content is oftentimes illustrated through larger
body sizes and by espousing favorable views about one’s body (i.e., body esteem), regardless of
size. Thus, it is important to consider the extent to which character portrayals that align with the
purported aims of the movement (i.e., inclusion of larger bodies and expression of body esteem)
are effective in promoting body positivity.
H1: Large (vs. thin) characters will be rated higher in body positivity.
H2: Characters with high (vs. low) body esteem will be rated higher in body positivity.
Although research suggests that exposure to women with larger bodies and body esteem can
result in more favorable psychological consequences (e.g., Cohen, Fardouly, et al., 2019), the
processes through which these effects operate has garnered less attention. Social comparison
theory (Festinger, 1954) and self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987) offer possible explanations
for how body-positive content influences one’s self-concept.
1.2. Social Comparisons and Self-Discrepancies
Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) and self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987)
are two frameworks that explain how people relate to others and how relations with others affect
their self-concepts. Self-concepts can be broadly defined as individuals’ perceptions of
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
7
themselves, influencing how they behave, and in turn, how they view themselves. These self-
perceptions are shaped by the media, including body-related messages (Strauman & Glenberg,
1994). Social comparisons are common ways in which individuals evaluate their own behaviors
and appearances (Mussweiler, 2003), encompassing their emotional and physical self-concepts
(Markus & Wurf, 1987). Self-discrepancies further elucidate social comparisons by considering
differences in the extent to which one possesses a particular attribute (actual or current self) and
desires an attribute (ideal self), ultimately shaping whether an attribute seems attainable. Social
comparison research has demonstrated that individuals compare not only with similar others but
also with individuals they think are better or worse off than themselves (Wood, 1989). In fact, a
meta-analysis of over 60 years of social comparison studies revealed that individuals tend to
compare with others they think are better off than themselves, generally leading to negative
mood and reduced ability in the dimension of interest (Gerber et al., 2018). Whether the resulting
effect is positive or negative depends on the comparison direction (lateral, upward, downward),
motivation (self-evaluation, self-improvement, self-enhancement), and perceived attainability of
the attribute.
1.2.1. Body Size Comparisons and Discrepancies
Social comparisons and self-discrepancies are routinely cited in body image scholarship
to explain why women experience aspirational and detrimental effects from exposure to idealized
depictions of other women (Want, 2009). Though the vast majority of body image research has
focused on the negative effects of exposure to the thin ideal (e.g., Bessenoff, 2006; Tiggemann &
Polivy, 2010), social comparison directions and motivations aid in explaining why individuals
may also experience positive effects (Veldhuis et al., 2017). For example, Halliwell and Dittmar
(2005) induced self-evaluation motives and self-improvement motives with written instructions
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
8
(e.g., “please evaluate aspects of this advert in relation to yourself” vs. “please consider aspects
of the ad in relation to how you could become more like the person you would ideally like to
be”) and then asked participants to view images of thin models. Results indicated that self-
evaluation motives with thin models increased body-focused anxiety, whereas self-improvement
motives did not. Likewise, another study exposed participants to images of thin women in
fashion and fitness magazines across five days, measuring if participants engaged in self-
evaluation (lateral) comparisons or self-improvement (upward) comparisons (Knobloch-
Westerwick, 2015b). From this study, participants who engaged in more self-improvement
comparisons reported greater body satisfaction during this period, but those who engaged in
more self-evaluation comparisons reported reduced body satisfaction. The authors argue that the
positive effect of self-improvement on body satisfaction is likely explained by perceived
attainability.
In essence, exposure to thin targets can be harmful or deflating to one’s body image
under certain conditions, particularly if the attribute is desired and seems unachievable
(Lockwood & Kunda, 1997). Alternatively, because thinness is a powerful, prevailing Western
sociocultural ideal (Weeden & Sabini, 2005), it may also be considered aspirational and
attractive (e.g., Knobloch-Westerwick, 2015b). In considering more diverse body sizes, one
meta-analysis indicated that exposure to images of women with larger bodies may improve body
image through downward social comparisons with targets (Holmstrom, 2004). For instance, an
experiment demonstrated that viewing plus-size (vs. thin) models resulted in fewer appearance-
based social comparisons and increased body satisfaction (Clayton et al., 2017). However, a
limitation to this line of research examining larger bodies is that it does not assess the underlying
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
9
motivations and discrepancies. The positive effects of exposure to larger bodies may be
explained by individuals’ engagement in downward social comparisons with targets.
Although previous research establishes the effects of lateral and upward social
comparisons with thin women, experimental studies are limited in directly examining how
individuals compare themselves to targets with larger bodies. It is possible that individuals may
still gravitate toward thin targets if they deem this body type aspirational (ideal), engaging in
upward social comparisons; at the same time, they may also feel worse about the current (actual)
state of their bodies and physical attractiveness if they fall short in this particular domain. If
people compare themselves with others that they perceive to be less fortunate or worse off than
themselves, they are more likely to feel better about their own circumstance. Larger bodies may
be considered more attainable or even less desirable, explaining the positive effects on body
image via downward social comparisons.
H3: Large (vs. thin) characters (a) will be considered less aspirational and (b) result in
higher post-exposure body image.
Though research explains the potential direct effects of body size on individuals, our work seeks
to understand the degree to which individuals compare themselves to targets of different sizes
and how perceived discrepancies may moderate these effects (e.g., Bessenoff, 2006; Bissell &
Rask, 2010; Vartanian, 2012). For instance, Bessenoff (2006) found that women with high body-
related self-discrepancy were more likely to engage in upward social comparisons and
experience negative psychological consequences from exposure to thin-ideal advertisements.
Alternatively, as individuals feel more intense discrepancy with larger women, they are likely to
reap more positive psychological consequences (e.g., body image) via downward socially
comparison processes.
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
10
H4: Readers’ attractiveness discrepancy moderates the effects of character body size on
(a) aspiration and (b) state body image such that greater attractiveness discrepancy with
the large (vs. thin) character will result in lower aspiration and higher state body image.
1.2.2. Body Esteem Comparisons and Discrepancies
In line with research on body positivity and its purported benefits, it is also predicted that
characters who exude body esteem should inspire readers to improve upon their own body
esteem, regardless of body size. One experiment explored body esteem with thin and average-
sized women in stories and found that reading stories about characters with low body esteem
heightened readers’ weight concern relative to a control group with no mention of body size
(Kaminski & Magee, 2013). Hence, we anticipate that learning about individuals with elevated
body esteem may reduce preoccupation with appearance-related concerns and serve as an
inspiring example for readers.
H5: Characters with high (vs. low) body esteem (a) will be considered more aspirational
and (b) result in better post-exposure body image.
Given that perceived attainability determines the extent to which individuals experience positive
or negative effects from exposure to inspirational or idealized portrayals (Knobloch-Westerwick,
2015b), individuals may feel especially inspired by characters who seem to love and appreciate
their bodies; however, it may also be the case that for those who substantially deviate in their
own feelings of self-worth, high body esteem characters may highlight a deficit in themselves
and may result in a deflating effect.
H6: Readers’ subjective well-being discrepancy moderates the effects of character body
esteem on (a) aspiration and (b) state body image such that greater subjective well-being
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
11
discrepancy with the high (vs. low) esteem character will result in higher aspiration and
lower state body image.
1.3. Literary Genre and Story Ending
Beyond body size and esteem, a methodological advantage of narratives is that they can
illustrate the tribulations and triumphs of individual actions within a storyline, and a broad body
of research has demonstrated how narratives impact individuals’ attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors
in a variety of areas (see Braddock & Dillard, 2016). Chick literature, or “chick lit,” is
characterized as a contemporary romance novel genre about single women in their 20s or 30s
seeking a life partner and balancing a demanding career (Montoro, 2012). A distinguishing
feature of chick lit is access to the character’s most intimate thoughts and worries (e.g., weight,
appearance, emotions; Rochelle, 2006). This focus on body image and weight concern has drawn
criticism from scholars (Gill & Herdieckerhoff, 2006) as to the possible negative effects it could
have on readers’ own body image. Thus, chick lit stories provide an ideal, naturalistic context to
explore body-related factors and messages of body positivity.
In particular, story ending might influence aspects of readers’ self-concepts (Richter et
al., 2015), including aspiration and body image. It is expected that reading about a character who
experiences success in their career or romance life domain would be judged more favorably or
skilled than someone who fails. However, happy endings may negatively impact how
participants view themselves and their own lives relative to the thriving character, considering
findings from relevant research (e.g., Kennard et al., 2016; Knobloch-Westerwick et al., 2014).
For example, one experiment, in which participants read either magazine excerpts on beauty
(depicting the thin ideal), career, or family topics, demonstrated that exposure to the career and
family topics produced more negative concerns regarding participants’ future career prospects
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
12
and balancing family life, than exposure to beauty ideals (Knobloch-Westerwick et al., 2014).
Interestingly, exposure to beauty ideals resulted in more appearance-related concerns, but they
were less frequent than career and family concerns. Knobloch-Westerwick et al. (2014)
concluded that although there is a push in the media to depict strong feminine role models,
women may still prefer traditional representations of the beauty ideal as they produce less
concerns about their futures.
H7: Happy (vs. sad) story ending (a) will be considered more aspirational and (b) result
in lower post-exposure body image.
Finally, we sought to broadly examine how different stories and characters are evaluated.
Narrative persuasion research suggests character liking is an important factor influencing
message processing in narratives (Moyer-Gusé, 2008). Moreover, given the variability that can
exist within stories, we considered how different popular storylines—specifically, career and
romance—might impact our hypothesized outcomes in efforts to document the robustness of
effects across distinct topics.
RQ1: Does body size (thin vs. large), body esteem (low vs. high), or story ending (sad vs.
happy) result in different ratings of character liking?
RQ2: Does the context of the story influence outcomes differently?
Accordingly, the present work used the experiences of protagonists in narratives to
understand how readers may socially compare and are affected by distinct portrayals of women
in stories. Specifically, we empirically investigated how character body size (thin vs. large),
body esteem (low vs. high), and story ending valence (sad vs. happy) influence readers’ self-
concepts, particularly related to body image. In order to demonstrate robustness of effects, two
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
13
experimental studies were conducted featuring a career scenario (Study 1) and a romantic
scenario (Study 2).
2. Method
2.1. Research Design Overview
We conducted two 2 x 2 x 2 between-subjects online experiments in which participants
were randomly assigned to read a version of a story about a character and then responded to a
series of measures that assessed their perceptions of the character and themselves. The
character’s body description (thin vs. large), body esteem (low vs. high), and story ending
valence (sad vs. happy) were varied. Procedures for Study 1 and Study 2 are reviewed.
2.2. Study 1: Career/Workplace Narrative
2.2.1. Procedure
All procedures and materials were approved by Chapman University’s Institutional
Review Board. The recruitment materials explained the goal of the study is to understand what
readers think about characters in stories. After providing consent, participants were instructed to
read a short fictional story about a woman. They were randomly assigned by Qualtrics online
survey software (Qualtrics.com) to one of eight experimental versions of the story. Participants
then completed an online questionnaire. They were compensated $2.50 in exchange for their
participation through CloudResearch at the conclusion of the study.
2.2.2. Sample
We restricted our recruitment to only include U.S. adult women, ages 18 to 40 (M =
31.42, SD = 5.20), to align with the target demographic of the literary genre (Montoro, 2012;
Rochelle, 2006) and research on body image across lifespan (Tiggemann & Lynch, 2001). A
sample of 250 women was recruited for Study 1. One participant’s data were excluded from
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
14
analyses for failing to meet the inclusion criteria for the study; thus, the final sample included
249 participants. All participants passed a single-item attention check. The majority of our
sample included cisgender women (97%); six identified as non-binary and one preferred not to
indicate their gender identity. Participants identified as White (69%), Black/African American
(10.8%), Asian (6.8%), Hispanic/Latinx (5.2%), American Indian or Alaska Native (0.4%),
Other (1.2%), and Multiracial (6.4%). Their body mass index (BMI) ranged from 16.14 to 65.18
(M = 26.89, SD = 7.88); one participant failed to provide adequate BMI data.
2.2.3. Stimulus Materials
The narrative stimuli for Study 1 were adapted from narratives previously used by
Kaminski and Magee (2013) and based on the novel, Something Borrowed (Giffin, 2005).
Example experimental stimuli can be found in our supplemental file. The narrative topic focused
on career success. The character works for a newspaper and is waiting to hear if she got a
promotion. She is preparing to meet with her editor and provides the reader with her innermost
thoughts and feelings, including her body size and weight. The narrative details how the meeting
with her editor goes. Different versions of the narrative were approximately 1,020 words in
length and took approximately five minutes to read (M = 4.71, SD = 2.98).
With respect to body size (thin vs. large), the character’s height, weight, and clothing size
were included in the story. The thin character was 5’4”, 105 pounds, and a size zero, whereas the
large character was 5’4”, 235 pounds, and a size 24. Body size manipulations were based on the
average woman’s height in the U.S. and calculations of underweight and overweight/obese
weight based on BMI (Office on Women’s Health in the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 2019). In terms of body esteem (low vs. high), these narratives also featured four body
esteem comments. For the low body esteem comments, the character expressed unhappiness with
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
15
her body and specific body parts (e.g., legs, stomach). For the high body esteem comments, the
character expresses pride in how her body looks and certain body parts. In addition, the story
included a sad or happy ending. In the happy ending version, the character receives the
promotion. In the sad ending version, the character gets bad news that she is being laid off.
2.2.4. Measures
2.2.4.1. Manipulation Checks. Three scales were used to determine the success of the
experimental manipulations. Perceived body size was measured by asking participants to rate the
body size of the character using the Female Photographic Figure Rating Scale (Swami et al.,
2008). The single-item scale includes 10 images of women ordered by increasing body size.
Participants were asked to select the figure they felt most closely resembles the character (1-10).
Perceived body esteem was measured with three seven-point semantic differential items about
the main character with the following endpoints: Not very confident in her body/Very confident
in her body; Dissatisfied with her appearance/Very satisfied with her appearance; and Ashamed
of her body/Proud of her body (α = .99). Story ending valence was assessed with three seven-
point semantic differential items about the story ending with the following endpoints:
Sad/Happy; Negative/Positive; and Depressing/Uplifting (α = .98).
2.2.4.2. Aspiration. How aspirational participants found the character was measured via
two Likert-style items (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) adapted from Knobloch-
Westerwick et al. (2020): “I would like to experience the same scenario as the woman in the
story,” and “I would like to be just like the woman in the story” (r = .77).
2.2.4.3. Subjective Well-Being and Attractiveness Discrepancy. Inspired by the Life
Role Salience Scales (Amatea et al., 1986) and Knobloch-Westerwick et al.’s (2020) Possible
Future Selves (PFS) measure, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
16
believed the character possessed three qualities of subjective well-being (happiness, success, life
satisfaction; α = .93) and attractiveness on visual analogue scales (VAS) ranging from 0 to 100
(0% = not at all; 100% = completely). Participants also rated themselves on these same qualities.
Composite subjective well-being and attractiveness discrepancy scores were then created by
subtracting the ratings of the character from participants’ ratings of themselves (i.e., Self –
Character = Discrepancy) as a proxy for social comparison. All scores were converted to positive
values ranging from 0 to 100 with higher scores reflecting greater discrepancy between oneself
and the character.
2.2.4.4. State Body Image. How participants were feeling about their bodies after
reading the story was measured with eight Likert-style items (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly
agree) adapted from Heatherton and Polivy (1991), Homan (2016), and Mendelson et al. (2001).
These items focused on appearance self-esteem, weight and shape satisfaction, and body
appreciation. Due to high intercorrelations among items, they were subjected to factor analysis
that revealed a single factor explaining 79.68% of the variance with factor loadings ranging from
.77 to .94. Example items are: “I am very pleased with my appearance,” and “I appreciate the
different and unique characteristics of my body” (α = .96).
2.2.4.5. Body Positivity. Two Likert-style items (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly
agree) were created to gauge the extent to which readers thought the story and character
promoted body appreciation and acceptance, based on conceptualizations of body positivity
(Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015). Items include: “The story promotes body appreciation and
acceptance,” and “The main character is body positive” (r = .87).
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
17
2.2.4.6. Character Liking. Character likeability was measured with three Likert-style
items (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) from Robinson and Knobloch-Westerwick
(2017). For example: “I liked the main character very much” (α = .93).
2.3. Study 2: Romance/Dating Narrative
We replicated Study 1 with a different topic to see if these effects are robust across
storylines. Study 2 followed the same procedures and used the same measures.
2.3.1. Sample
Another sample of 250 women was recruited for Study 2. Two participants did not meet
the inclusion criteria; thus, the final sample included 248 participants. Similar to Study 1, the
vast majority of our sample included cisgender women (98%) and five identified as non-binary.
Ages ranged from 19 to 40 (M = 31.29, SD = 5.22). Participants identified as White (70%),
Asian (10.1%), Black/African American (6.5%), Hispanic/Latinx (6%), and Multiracial (7.7%).
Their BMI ranged from 16.36 to 66.17 (M = 26.76, SD = 7.15); one participant failed to provide
adequate BMI data.
2.3.2. Stimulus Materials
For Study 2, the narrative was also adapted from stimuli used by Kaminski and Magee
(2013) and based on the novel, Dreaming in Black and White (Jensen Walker, 2005).
Experimental stimuli can be found in our supplemental file. The topic focused on romantic
success. In this narrative, the character goes on a date, detailing her excitement and preparation
for her date, as well as how the date goes. This narrative included the same experimental
manipulations as Study 1 but varied the context. In the happy ending version, the character
explains the date was successful concluding in a romantic kiss and excitement about future plans.
In the sad ending version, the character experiences an awkward “goodbye” without a kiss and
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
18
explains that the date never reaches out again. Consistent with Study 1, different versions of the
narrative were approximately 1,125 words in length and took about five minutes to read (M =
5.19, SD = 4.25).
3. Results
SPSS Statistics (Version 26) was used to test our hypotheses and research questions.
Reading time was used to identify any outliers in the data. Six participants in Study 1 and seven
participants in Study 2 were three standard deviations above the mean. Their responses were
initially inspected separately but did not distinctly deviate from the sample on any outcomes. All
responses were retained in our analyses. Post-hoc power analyses indicated our sample achieved
sufficient statistical power for detecting effects unless noted otherwise (see Tables 2 and 3).
3.1. Data Analysis Plan
First, one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were run to test the success of the
experimental manipulations for each study. Next, we used ANOVAs to test the direct effects of
each experimental factor on their posited outcomes for Study 1, followed by the same analyses
for Study 2 to see if a consistent pattern emerged with a different story topic. We then conducted
moderation analyses to examine the conditional effects of body size and body esteem on
outcomes. Table 1 includes zero-order correlations and descriptive statistics for key variables.
Tables 2 and 3 provide the one-way ANOVA results organized by experimental factors. Tables
4-7 contain the conditional effects of the experimental factors at values of the moderator.
Although we did not make a priori predictions about interactions among experimental
factors, two- and three-way ANOVAs were used to detect any interaction effects. These analyses
revealed only significant interactions between experimental factors on ratings of body positivity;
however, these effects were marginal across both storylines. All other interactions were not
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
19
significant. A summary of descriptive statistics and significant mean differences by experimental
condition are reported in a supplemental file.
3.2. Study 1: Career/Workplace Narrative
3.2.1. Manipulation Checks
One-way ANOVAs were conducted to test the effectiveness of character body size (thin
vs. large), body esteem (low vs. high), and story ending (sad vs. happy) manipulations with the
career story. Participants believed the thin character (M = 2.33, SD = 1.70) had a significantly
smaller figure on the Female Photographic Figure Rating Scale (1-10) than the large character
(M = 8.56, SD = 1.34), F(1, 247) = 1034.27, p < .001, η2 = .81. Participants rated the high body
esteem character (M = 6.46, SD = 0.96) as possessing more body confidence than the low esteem
character (M = 1.30, SD = 0.75), F(1, 247) = 2227.60, p < .001, η2 = .90. Lastly, participants felt
the happy story ending (M = 2.77, SD = 1.54) was more positive and uplifting than the sad
ending (M = 6.61, SD = 0.80), F(1, 247) = 609.32, p < .001, η2 = .71. Thus, all experimental
inductions were successful.
3.2.2. Character Body Size
We hypothesized that the large (vs. thin) character would be rated higher in body
positivity (H1). Supporting H1, participants rated the large character (M = 3.96, SD = 2.36)
higher in body positivity than the thin character (M = 3.12, SD = 1.97), F(1, 247) = 9.50, p < .01,
η2 = 04.
We expected that the large (vs. thin) character (a) would be considered less aspirational
and (b) result in higher post-exposure body image (H3). Supporting H3a, participants found the
large character (M = 2.59, SD = 1.57) less aspirational than the thin character (M = 2.95, SD =
1.78), F(1, 247) = 2.90, p = .01, η2 = .01. However, reading about the large (M = 4.33, SD =
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
20
1.48) or thin (M = 4.24, SD = 1.57) character did not yield differences in post-exposure state
body image, F(1, 247) = 0.21, p = .65 (H3b). H3 was partially supported.
We predicted that readers’ attractiveness discrepancy moderates the effects of character
body size on (a) aspiration and (b) state body image such that greater attractiveness discrepancy
with the large (vs. thin) character would result in lower aspiration and higher state body image
(H4). A set of moderation analyses was conducted using the PROCESS macro Model 1 (Hayes,
2022) with 95% confidence intervals.
The first moderation analysis considered the effects of character body size (X; 0 = Thin;
1 = Large) with participants’ attractiveness discrepancy as a moderator (W) on aspiration (Y).
The moderation was not statistically significant, ΔR2 = .01, p = .09 (see Table 4). H4a was not
supported.
The second moderation test considered the effects of character body size (X; 0 = Thin; 1
= Large) with participants’ attractiveness discrepancy as a moderator (W) on state body image
(Y). The moderation was statistically significant, ΔR2 = .10, p < .001. The Johnson-Neyman
technique was used to further examine significance regions at different values of the moderator.
Significance was detected at higher values of attractiveness discrepancy such that those who had
greater attractiveness discrepancy with the large character reported higher state body image.
However, those who reported smaller discrepancy with the large character reported lower state
body image (see Table 5). The moderation is cleaved given the relationship changes in valence at
different values of the moderator (Holbert & Park, 2020). H4b was supported.
3.2.3. Character Body Esteem
We hypothesized that readers would rate the high (vs. low) body esteem character higher
in body positivity (H2). The high body esteem character (M = 5.23, SD = 1.58) was considered
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
21
more body positive than the low esteem character (M = 1.79, SD = 1.15), F(1, 247) = 358.91, p <
.001, η2 = .61. H2 was supported.
We expected that the high (vs. low) body esteem character (a) would be considered more
aspirational and (b) result in better post-exposure body image (H5). Supporting H5a, participants
found the high body esteem character (M = 3.32, SD = 1.74) more aspirational than the low body
esteem character (M = 2.21, SD = 1.44), F(1, 247) = 30.11, p < .001, η2 = .11, as anticipated.
Moreover, those who read about the high body esteem character (M = 4.49, SD = 1.53) reported
better state body image than those reading about the low esteem character (M = 4.07, SD = 1.49),
F(1, 247) = 5.02, p < .05, η2 = .02 (H5b). H5 was supported.
We predicted that readers’ subjective well-being discrepancy moderates the effects of
character body esteem on (a) aspiration and (b) state body image such that greater subjective
well-being discrepancy with the high (vs. low) esteem character will result in higher aspiration
and lower state body image (H6). Another set of moderation analyses was conducted using the
PROCESS macro Model 1 (Hayes, 2022).
The first moderation analysis considered the effects of character body esteem (X; 0 =
Low; 1 = High) with participants’ subjective well-being discrepancy as a moderator (W) on
aspiration (Y). The moderation was significant, ΔR2 = .03, p = .01. Using the Johnson-Neyman
technique, significance was only detected at certain values of subjective well-being discrepancy.
As subjective well-being discrepancy increased with the high esteem character, the more
aspirational they found the character to be. However, no significant effects were detected at very
low values of discrepancy (see Table 6). The moderation is contingent given the relationship is
significant only at specific values of the moderator (Holbert & Park, 2020). H6a was supported.
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
22
The second moderation test considered the effects of character body esteem (X; 0 = Low;
1 = High) with participants’ subjective well-being discrepancy as a moderator (W) on state body
image (Y). The moderation was statistically significant, ΔR2 = .06, p < .001. Significance was
detected at low and high values of subjective well-being discrepancy, indicating a cleaved
moderation (Holbert & Park, 2020). Those who reported lower subjective well-being
discrepancy with the high esteem character reported higher state body image; whereas those who
reported greater discrepancy with the high esteem character reported lower state body image (see
Table 7). H6b was supported.
3.2.4. Story Ending Valence
We posited that the character experiencing the happy (vs. sad) story ending (a) would be
considered more aspirational and (b) result in lower state body image (H7). Supporting H7a,
participants found the character more aspirational in the happy ending (M = 3.53, SD = 1.72)
than the sad version (M = 2.01, SD = 1.26), F(1, 247) = 63.61, p < .001, η2 = .20. However,
reading the happy story ending (M = 4.33, SD = 1.59) or sad story ending (M = 4.24, SD = 1.46)
did not yield differences in state body image, F(1, 247) = 0.20, p = .65 (H7b). H7 was partially
supported.
Finally, we asked if differences exist in character likeability across the versions (RQ1).
Participants found the large character (M = 4.98, SD = 1.48) more likeable than the thin character
(M = 4.39, SD = 1.63), F(1, 247) = 8.90, p < .01, η2 = .03. They also liked the high body esteem
character (M = 5.20, SD = 1.40) more than the low esteem character (M = 4.16, SD = 1.60), F(1,
247) = 29.89, p < .001, η2 = .11. Participants did not significantly differ in their ratings of
character likeability whether they read the happy ending (M = 4.81, SD = 1.59) and sad ending
(M = 4.55, SD = 1.57), F(1, 247) = 1.57, p = .21.
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
23
3.3. Study 2: Romance/Dating Narrative
We further asked if story context influences outcomes differently (RQ2). The following
section outlines replications and distinctions between Study 1 (Career/Workplace Narrative) and
Study 2 (Romance/Dating Narrative). All experimental inductions were strong and successful.
Please see Table 3 for ANOVA results by experimental factor.
3.3.1. Character Body Size
Effects of character body size replicated in Study 2. Although not supported in Study 1,
character body size in the romance story significantly influenced participants’ state body image
(H3b), such that reading about the large character (M = 4.38, SD = 1.59) resulted in better state
body image than the thin character (M = 3.82, SD = 1.60), F(1, 246) = 7.73, p < .01, η2 = .03. H3
was fully supported in Study 2.
In addition, moderation analyses revealed participants’ attractiveness discrepancy (W)
significantly moderated the effect of character body size (X; 0 = Thin; 1 = Large) on aspiration
(Y), ΔR2 = .05, p < .001 (H4a). Specifically, significant effects were only detected at higher
values of the moderator such that those who had more intense attractiveness discrepancy with the
large character reported lower aspiration (see Table 4). H4 was fully supported in Study 2.
3.3.2. Character Body Esteem
Effects of character body esteem largely replicated in Study 2; however, the effect of
character body esteem on state body image did not replicate in Study 2 (H5b): High body esteem
(M = 3.97, SD = 1.60) and low body esteem (M = 4.22, SD = 1.63) characters did not result in
differences in state body image, F(1, 246) = 1.57, p = .21. H5 was partially supported in Study 2.
3.3.3. Story Ending Valence
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
24
Effects of story ending replicated in Study 2; however, one difference emerged between
storylines. Participants reading the happy ending (M = 3.91, SD = 1.61) reported slightly lower
state body image than those who read the sad ending (M = 4.28, SD = 1.61), F(1, 246) = 3.20, p
= .01, η2 = .01 (H7b). H7 was fully supported in Study 2.
Replicating Study 1, participants found the large and high body esteem character more
likeable than the thin and low body esteem character (RQ1), with no differences in character
likeability between story endings in Study 2.
4. Discussion
Through two experiments, we investigated how character body size (thin vs. large), body
esteem (low vs. high), and story ending valence (sad vs. happy) influenced readers’ self-
concepts. Broadly, these studies documented that large characters who exuded favorable views
about their bodies were considered more likeable and effective at promoting body positivity. At
the same time, thin characters with high body esteem who experienced positive life events (i.e.,
happy ending) were deemed most aspirational. Moderation analyses further elucidated these
relationships, suggesting readers’ discrepancy ultimately explained the effects of character body
size and esteem on readers’ body image: greater subjective well-being discrepancy with high
body esteem characters resulted in lower state body image; greater attractiveness discrepancy
with large characters resulted in better state body image. The vast majority of findings replicated
across story topics demonstrating the robustness of these effects. Interestingly, the high (vs. low)
body esteem character in the career story and the large (vs. thin) character in the romance story
yielded more favorable effects on state body image, illustrating the relative importance of
context. We discuss theoretical and practical implications of this work, as well as highlight some
limitations and offer recommendations for future research.
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
25
4.1. Implications
Large and high body esteem characters were considered more body positive and likeable
than thin and low body esteem characters across both storylines. Our findings are largely
consistent with recent research using captions and text to communicate psychological states of
women in imagery (Davies et al., 2020; Tiggemann et al., 2020). Women with larger bodies
expressing favorable views about themselves may be more effective in combatting negative body
image effects, compared to thin women expressing similar views. Notable critiques of the body-
positive movement are that appearance is still central and media representations are frequently
dominated by average-sized women (Cohen, Irwin, et al., 2019). Women who substantially
diverge from the thin ideal, like the large characters in our narratives, may be better advocates
for the aims of the movement, consistent with extant research on the positive effects of exposure
to larger bodies (Cohen, Fardouly, et al., 2019). Future work should also continue to determine
the specific reasons why people like individuals with larger bodies and consider other forms of
diversity and inclusion (e.g., race, disability). One possibility is that these targets are less
threatening, consistent with downward social comparison processes (Willis, 1981); another
plausible explanation is that these sources are traditionally less represented in the mainstream
media and result in a positive expectancy violation (Burgoon, 1993).
Further considering the effects of body size, thin characters were considered more
aspirational, even though exposure can be more harmful to individuals’ current body image. Past
experimental research documents how those with high body-related self-discrepancies are more
likely to engage in upward social comparisons with thin-ideal imagery and experience negative
psychological consequences as a result (Bessenoff, 2006). Our experiments extend social
comparisons and self-discrepancies to understand the effects of larger bodies, finding that higher
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
26
values of discrepancy with larger women resulted in more favorable psychological
consequences. Our results mostly fall in line with established body image research regarding
body size (Holmstrom, 2004): Although individuals tended to experience more favorable effects
from exposure to larger women, this finding may also mean that individuals are engaging in
downward social comparisons with large characters as they (a) did not find these characters as
aspirational and (b) experienced the most favorable body image effects at higher values of
discrepancy. It appears, then, that society still has more work to do in loosening the grips of thin
idealization. On the surface, downward social comparisons with targets can be beneficial and
protective, enhancing one’s mood and feelings about oneself. However, if larger women are
judged as less desirable, this self-serving enhancement effect may result in derogation, prejudice,
and reinforcement of weight stigma (Vartanian & Silverstein, 2013; Willis, 1981). Future studies
should consider other factors (e.g., individual differences) that influence gravitation toward
particular media portrayals and their subsequent effects of individuals’ self-concepts.
Notably, our work identifies some context-specific effects of body size and esteem on
body image. The high body esteem character in the career story and the large character in the
romance story yielded more favorable effects on state body image. Perhaps body size is deemed
a more important factor in romance than career success, consistent with magazine excerpts on
beauty ideals generating more appearance-focused concerns than parenting and career portrayals
(Kennard et al., 2016), and esteem is more influential in a professional context. Future work
should continue to consider distinct storylines and literary genres in which appearance may be
more or less central to the context. In considering the relative influence of experimental factors,
the effects of body esteem were more pronounced and influential on impressions of body
positivity and aspiration than body size. Consistent with body image work examining self-
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
27
improvement social comparisons with more successful comparison targets (Knobloch-
Westerwick, 2015b), characters with high body esteem were considered more aspirational.
Nonetheless, greater discrepancy with high body esteem characters resulted in lower state body
image, in line with research examining social comparisons and relevant self-concepts (Knobloch-
Westerwick et al., 2020). Body image scholarship indicates women traditionally are conditioned
to express normative discontent with their bodies (Rodin et al., 1984); however, these results
shed light on the increasing pressures to espouse favorable views toward one’s body and its
possible inadvertent damaging effects on others.
In general, our findings have implications for fostering positive body image and healthy
self-concepts using a text-based approach. From a practical standpoint, this work could inform
media literacy interventions and campaigns promoting body positivity in a more effective
manner. Indeed, some researchers suggest even moving past body positivity toward “body
neutrality” approaches in which individuals are not forced to love their bodies but accept them
for how they are (Cohen et al., 2020; Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015). Mainly, it is crucial that
the body-positive movement shifts away from imagery and appearance-centric content and puts
greater emphasis on psychological well-being, in line with recent critiques (Cohen et al., 2020).
Our work finds that messages framed as endorsing favorable views about one’s body and body
confidence can be inspirational. Books and other forms of textual narratives (e.g., blogs) can be
attractive vehicles to convey feelings and understand the lived experience of others in absence of
visual information.
4.2. Limitations and Future Directions
Although this work provides insightful empirical findings, it is not without a few
limitations, including the posttest-only and forced exposure experimental design that cannot
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
28
account for baseline characteristics and story genre preferences. The Selective Exposure Self-
and Affect- Management Model (SESAM; Knobloch-Westerwick, 2015a) explains how
individuals maintain their self-concepts, and associated affect, through media selection and
social comparisons. Future research should implement a selective exposure quasi-experimental
design in which individuals select their preferred messages to understand how currently activated
self-concepts influence media selection and subsequent effects on the individual. To enhance
ecological validity, more prolonged and longitudinal experimental designs are needed to account
for the long-term, enduring effects of such media exposure. Further, a more diverse sample with
respect to race and ethnic background is necessary as social comparison processes and body
image concerns may differ based on these characteristics (Evans & McConnell, 2003). Finally,
future studies may wish to include an average-sized target or control group that removes weight-
related information to explore the effects of body esteem in isolation. Despite these limitations,
the current work highlights the complexities of body appearance and confidence in media
messages, as well offers guidance for body image scholars and practitioners.
4.3. Conclusion
Guided by social comparison theory and self-discrepancy theory, the goal of this research
was to understand how exposure to different portrayals of women varying in body size, esteem,
and the stories they tell can influence readers’ self-concepts. Witnessing confident, successful
women can inspire others to improve upon themselves. Although exposure to women with larger
bodies can have less detrimental effects on body image, the effects may be explained by the
extent to which individuals feel discrepant and potentially downwardly social compare with
these sources. If women believe they are better off than others on the grounds of body size, this
could result in further perpetuation of stigma, undermining the aims of the body-positive
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
29
movement, and raising other concerns about feeling better about oneself at another’s expense.
More research is needed that accounts for individuals’ discrepancy between themselves and
others (e.g., media figures) to enhance explanatory power in body image scholarship, especially
with the push for more diverse and realistic representations of women.
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
30
References
Amatea, E. S., Cross, E. G., Clark, J. E., & Bobby, C. L. (1986). Assessing the work and family
role expectations of career-oriented men and women: The Life Role Salience Scales.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48(4), 831-838. https://doi.org/10.2307/352576
Bessenoff, G. R. (2006). Can the media affect us? Social comparison, self-discrepancy, and the
thin ideal. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(3), 239-251.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00292.x
Bissell, K., & Rask, A. (2010). Real women on real beauty: Self-discrepancy, internalisation of
the thin ideal, and perceptions of attractiveness and thinness in Dove’s Campaign for
Real Beauty. International Journal of Advertising, 29(4), 643-668.
https://doi.org/10.2501/S0265048710201385
Braddock, K., & Dillard, J. P. (2016). Meta-analytic evidence for the persuasive effect of
narratives on beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. Communication Monographs,
83(4), 446-467. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2015.1128555
Brathwaite, K. N., & DeAndrea, D. C. (2022). BoPopriation: How self-promotion and corporate
commodification can undermine the body positivity (BoPo) movement on
Instagram. Communication Monographs, 89(1), 25-46.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2021.1925939
Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional
communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12, 30-48.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X93121003
Clayton, R. B., Ridgway, J. L., & Hendrickse, J. (2017). Is plus size equal? The positive impact
of average and plus-sized media fashion models on women’s cognitive resource
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
31
allocation, social comparisons, and body satisfaction. Communication Monographs,
84(3), 406-422. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1332770
Cohen, R., Fardouly, J., Newton-John, T., & Slater, A. (2019). #BoPo on Instagram: An
experimental investigation of the effects of viewing body positive content on young
women’s mood and body image. New Media & Society, 21(7), 1546-1564.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819826530
Cohen, R., Irwin, L., Newton-John, T., & Slater, A. (2019). #Bodypositivity: A content analysis
of body positive accounts on Instagram. Body Image, 29, 47-57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.02.007
Cohen, R., Newton-John, T., & Slater, A. (2020). The case for body positivity on social media:
Perspectives on current advances and future directions. Journal of Health Psychology,
26(13), 2365-2373. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105320912450
Davies, B., Turner, M., & Udell, J. (2020). Add a comment… how fitspiration and body positive
captions attached to social media images influence the mood and body esteem of young
female Instagram users. Body Image, 33, 101-105.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.02.009
Evans, P., & McConnell, A. R. (2003). Do racial minorities respond in the same way to
mainstream beauty standards? Social comparison processes in Asian, Black, and White
women. Self and Identity, 2(2), 153-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309030
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140.
Gerber, J. P., Wheeler, L., & Suls, J. (2018). Social comparison theory meta-analysis 60+ years
on. Psychological Bulletin, 144(2), 177-197. http://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000127
Giffin, E. (2005). Something borrowed. St. Martin’s Press.
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
32
Gill, R., & Herdieckerhoff, E. (2006). Rewriting the romance: New femininities in chick lit?
Feminist Media Studies, 6(4), 487-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680770600989947
Grabe, S., Ward, L. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2008). The role of the media in body image concerns
among women: A meta-analysis of experimental and correlational studies. Psychological
Bulletin, 134(3), 460-476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.460
Green, M. C., Kass, S., Carrey, J., Herzig, B., Feeney, R., & Sabini, J. (2008). Transportation
across media: Repeated exposure to print and film. Media Psychology, 11(4), 512-539.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260802492000
Halliwell, E., & Dittmar, H. (2004). Does size matter? The impact of model’s body size on
women’s body-focused anxiety and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 23(1), 104-122. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.1.104.26989
Halliwell, E., & Dittmar, H. (2005). The role of self-improvement and self-evaluation motives in
social comparisons with idealized female bodies in the media. Body Image, 2, 249-261.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2005.05.001
Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach (3rd.). Guilford Press.
Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for measuring state
self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 895-910.
Hendrickse, J., Clayton, R. B., Ray, E. C., Ridgway, J. L., & Secharan, R. (2020). Experimental
effects of viewing thin and plus-size models in objectifying and empowering contexts on
Instagram. Health Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1761077
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological
Review, 94(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
33
Holbert, R. L., & Park, E. (2020). Conceptualizing, organizing, and positing moderation in
communication research. Communication Theory, 30(3), 227-246.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtz006
Holmstrom, A. J. (2004). The effects of the media on body image: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48(2), 196-217.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4802_3
Homan, K. J. (2016). Factor structure and psychometric properties of a state version of the Body
Appreciation Scale-2. Body Image, 19, 204-207.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.10.004
Jensen Walker, L. (2005). Dreaming in black and white. West Bow Press.
Kaminski, M. J., & Magee, R. G. (2013). Does this book make me look fat? The effect of
protagonist body weight and body esteem on female readers’ body esteem. Body Image,
10(2), 255-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2012.10.009
Kennard, A. R., Willis, L. E., Robinson, M. J., & Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2016). The allure of
Aphrodite: How gender-congruent media portrayals impact adult women’s possible
future selves. Human Communication Research, 42(2), 221-245.
Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2015a). The selective exposure self- and affect- management
(SESAM) model: Applications in the realm of race, politics, and health. Communication
Research, 42(7), 959-985. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214539173
Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2015b). Thinspiration: Self-improvement versus self-evaluation
social comparisons with thin-ideal media portrayals. Health Communication, 30(11),
1089-1101. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.921270
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
34
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Kennard, A. R., Westerwick, A., Willis, L. E., & Gong, Y. (2014). A
crack in the crystal ball? Prolonged exposure to media portrayals of social roles affect
possible future selves. Communication Research, 41(6), 739-759.
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Robinson, M. J., Willis, L. E., & Luong, K. T. (2020). Beauty or
business queen: How young women select media to reinforce possible future selves.
Communication Research, 47(3), 323-345.
Lazuka, R. F., Wick, M. R., Keel, P. K., & Harriger, J. A. (2020). Are we there yet? Progress in
depicting diverse images of beauty in Instagram’s body positivity movement. Body
Image, 34, 85-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.05.001
Lockwood, P., &, Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on
the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 91-103.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.91
Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective.
Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.38.020187.001503
Mendelson, B. K., Mendelson, M. J., & White, D. R. (2001). Body-esteem scale for adolescents
and adults. Journal of Personality Assessment, 76(1), 90-106.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA7601_6
Montoro, R. (2012). Chick lit: The stylistics of cappuccino fiction. Continuum International
Publishing Group.
Moyer-Gusé, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive
effects of entertainment-education messages. Communication Theory, 18, 407-425.
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
35
Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and
consequences. Psychological Review, 110,(3), 472-489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295X.110.3.472
Office on Women’s Health in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2019).
Weight and obesity. https://www.womenshealth.gov/healthy-weight/weight-and-obesity
Richter, T., Appel, M., & Calio, F. (2014). Stories can influence the self-concept. Social
Influence, 9(3), 172-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2013.799099
Robinson, M. J., & Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2017). Bedtime stories that work: The effect of
protagonist liking on narrative persuasion. Health Communication, 32(3), 339-
346. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1138381
Rochelle, M. A. (2006). About a girl: Female subjectivity and sexuality in contemporary ‘chick’
culture. In S. Ferris & M. Young (Eds.), Chick lit: The new woman’s fiction (pp. 191-
206). Routledge.
Rodgers, R. F., Paxton, S. J., & Wertheim, E. H. (2021). #Take idealized bodies out of the
picture: A scoping review of social media content aiming to protect and promote positive
body image. Body Image, 38, 10-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2021.03.009
Rodgers, R. F., Wertheim, E. H., Paxton, S. J., Tylka, T. L., & Harriger, J. A. (2022). #Bopo:
Enhancing body image through body positive social media-evidence to date and research
directions. Body Image, 41, 367-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2022.03.008
Rodin, J., Silberstein, L., & Striegel-Moore, R. H. (1984). Women and weight: A normative
discontent. In T. B. Sonderegger (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1984:
Psychology and gender (Vol. 32, pp. 267-307). University of Nebraska Press.
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
36
Sastre, A. (2014). Towards a radical body positive: Reading the online “body positive
movement”. Feminist Media Studies, 14(6), 929-943.
Stevens, A., & Griffiths, S. (2020). Body positivity (#BoPo) in everyday life: An ecological
momentary assessment study showing potential benefits to individuals’ image and
emotional wellbeing. Body Image, 35, 181-191.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.09.003
Strauman, T. J., & Glenberg, A. M. (1994). Self-concept and body-image disturbance: Which
self-beliefs predict body size overestimation? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 18, 105-
125. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02357219
Swami, V., Salem, N., Furnham, A., & Tovée, M. J. (2008). Initial examination of the validity
and reliability of the Female Photographic Figure Rating Scale for body image
assessment. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(8), 1752-1761.
Tiggemann, M., Anderberg, I., & Brown, Z. (2020). #Loveyourbody: The effect of body positive
Instagram captions on women’s body image. Body Image, 33, 129-136.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.02.015
Tiggemann, M., & Lynch, J. E. (2001). Body image across the life span in adult women: The
role of self-objectification. Developmental Psychology, 37(2), 243-253.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.2.243
Tiggemann, M., & Polivy, J. (2010). Upward and downward: Social comparison processing of
thin idealized media images. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(3), 356-364.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01581.x
Tylka, T. L. (2019). Body appreciation. In T. L. Tylka, & N. Piran (Eds.). Handbook of positive
body image and embodiment: Constructs, protective factors, and interventions (pp. 22-
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
37
32). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/medpsych/9780190841874.003.0003
Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. L. (2015). What is and what is not positive body image?
Conceptual foundations and construct definition. Body Image, 14, 118-129.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.04.001
Vartanian, L. R. (2012). Self-discrepancy theory and body image. In T. F. Cash (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of body image and human appearance (Vol. 2, pp. 711-717). Academic
Press.
Vartanian, L. R., & Silverstein, K. M. (2013). Obesity as a status cue: Perceived social status and
the stereotypes of obese individuals. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, E319-
E328. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12052
Veldhuis, J., Konijn, E. A., & Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2017). Boost your body: Self-
improvement magazine messages increase body satisfaction in young adults. Health
Communication, 32(2), 200-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2015.1113482
Vendemia, M. A., DeAndrea, D. C., & Brathwaite, K. N. (2021). Objectifying the body positive
movement: The effects of sexualizing and digitally modifying body-positive images on
Instagram. Body Image, 38, 137-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2021.03.017
Want, S. C. (2009). Meta-analytic moderators of experimental exposure to media portrayals of
women on female appearance satisfaction: Social comparisons as automatic processes.
Body Image, 6, 257-269. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.07.008
Weeden, J., & Sabini, J. (2005). Physical attractiveness and health in Western societies: A
review. Psychological Bulletin, 131(5), 635-653. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.131.5.635
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
38
Table 1
Zero-Order Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for Key Variables
Variable
1
2
3
4
5
6
1. Body Positivity
--
.14*
-.05
-.01
.40**
.53**
2. State Body Image
.04
--
-.15*
-.07
-.05
-.01
3. Attractiveness Discrepancy
-.08
-.24**
--
.41**
-.08
-.16*
4. Subjective Well-Being Discrepancy
-.11
-.17**
.53**
--
< .001
-.14*
5. Aspiration
.29**
-.11
.03
-.04
--
.47**
6. Character Liking
.41**
.08
-.11
-.13*
.30**
--
Study 1 – Career/Workplace Narrative (N = 249)
M
3.53
4.29
23.97
19.76
2.77
4.68
SD
(2.21)
(1.52)
(23.80)
(19.67)
(1.69)
(1.58)
Study 2 – Romance/Dating Narrative (N = 248)
M
4.04
4.10
25.85
22.55
2.73
5.01
SD
(2.03)
(1.62)
(25.55)
(22.97)
(1.60)
(1.41)
Note. *p < .05. **p < .01 (two-tailed). Career/Workplace Narrative (Study 1) correlations are
above the diagonal; Romance/Dating Narrative (Study 2) correlations are below the diagonal.
Discrepancy scores ranged from 0-100. All other measures were on seven-point scales.
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
39
Table 2
Study 1 – Career/Workplace Narrative – ANOVA Results by Experimental Factor
Variable
M
SD
M
SD
F(1, 247)
η2
Character Body Size
Thin
(n = 126)
Large
(n = 123)
Manipulation Checks
Perceived Body Figure
2.33
1.70
8.56
1.34
1034.27***
.81
Body Positivity (H1)
3.12
1.97
3.96
2.36
9.50**
.04
Aspiration (H3a)
2.95
1.78
2.59
1.57
2.90**
.01†
State Body Image (H3b)
4.24
1.57
4.33
1.48
0.21
--
Character Liking (RQ1)
4.39
1.63
4.98
1.48
8.90**
.03
Character Body Esteem
Low
(n = 123)
High
(n = 126)
Manipulation Checks
Perceived Body Esteem
1.30
0.75
6.46
0.96
2227.60***
.90
Body Positivity (H2)
1.79
1.15
5.23
1.58
385.91***
.61
Aspiration (H5a)
2.21
1.44
3.32
1.74
30.11***
.11
State Body Image (H5b)
4.07
1.49
4.49
1.53
5.02*
.02†
Character Liking (RQ1)
4.16
1.60
5.20
1.40
29.89***
.11
Story Ending Valence
Sad
(n = 124)
Happy
(n = 125)
Manipulation Checks
Story Ending Valence
2.77
1.54
6.61
0.80
609.32***
.71
Body Positivity
3.54
2.13
3.52
2.29
0.01
--
Aspiration (H7a)
2.01
1.26
3.53
1.72
63.61***
.20
State Body Image (H7b)
4.33
1.59
4.24
1.46
0.20
--
Character Liking (RQ1)
4.55
1.57
4.81
1.59
1.57
--
Note. †Indicates insufficient observed statistical power based on conventional values.
*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
40
Table 3
Study 2 – Romance/Dating Narrative – ANOVA Results by Experimental Factor
Variable
M
SD
M
SD
F(1, 246)
η2
Character Body Size
Thin
(n = 125)
Large
(n = 123)
Manipulation Checks
Perceived Body Figure
2.18
1.51
8.39
1.58
999.24***
.80
Body Positivity (H1)
3.39
1.85
4.70
2.00
28.35***
.10
Aspiration (H3a)
2.92
1.72
2.53
1.46
3.81*
.02†
State Body Image (H3b)
3.82
1.60
4.38
1.59
7.73**
.03
Character Liking (RQ1)
4.65
1.57
5.37
1.13
16.74***
.06
Character Body Esteem
Low
(n = 123)
High
(n = 125)
Manipulation Checks
Perceived Body Esteem
1.51
0.74
6.46
0.95
2096.09***
.89
Body Positivity (H2)
2.70
1.54
5.36
1.53
185.20***
.43
Aspiration (H5a)
2.34
1.36
3.11
1.74
14.95***
.06
State Body Image (H5b)
4.22
1.63
3.97
1.60
1.57
--
Character Liking (RQ1)
4.83
1.41
5.18
1.40
4.01*
.02†
Story Ending Valence
Sad
(n = 123)
Happy
(n = 125)
Manipulation Checks
Story Ending Valence
2.25
1.25
6.45
0.82
979.49***
.80
Body Positivity
3.93
2.09
4.15
1.97
0.73
--
Aspiration (H7a)
2.24
1.49
3.20
1.57
24.29***
.09
State Body Image (H7b)
4.28
1.61
3.91
1.61
3.20**
.01†
Character Liking (RQ1)
4.97
1.47
5.04
1.36
0.14
--
Note. †Indicates insufficient observed statistical power based on conventional values.
*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
41
Table 4
Conditional Effects of Character Body Size (X) and Attractiveness Discrepancy (W) on
Aspiration
Study 1 – Career/Workplace Narrative (N = 249)
Aspiration (Y)
Predictors
b
SE
t
p
Body Size (X)
0.01
0.30
0.04
.97
Attractiveness Discrepancy
0.002
0.01
0.36
.72
Body Size x Attractiveness Discrepancy
-0.02
0.01
-1.71
.09
Model Summary: R2 = .17, F(3, 245) = 2.44, p = .07
Study 2 – Romance/Dating Narrative (N = 248)
Aspiration (Y)
Predictors
b
SE
t
p
Body Size (X)
0.36
0.28
1.27
.21
Attractiveness Discrepancy
0.01
0.01
2.57
.01
Body Size x Attractiveness Discrepancy
-0.03
0.01
-3.74
< .001
Model Summary: R2 = .26, F(3, 244) = 6.00, p < .001
Moderator:
Conditional Effects of X on Y at Values of Moderator
Attractiveness Discrepancy
b
SE
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
1.00
0.33
0.28
1.18
.24
-0.22
0.88
17.50
-0.16
0.21
-0.77
.44
-0.58
0.25
25.41
-0.40
0.20
-1.97
.05
-0.79
0.00
56.00
-1.31
0.32
-4.12
< .001
-1.93
-0.68
100.00
-2.62
0.63
-4.16
< .001
-3.86
-1.38
Note. Character Body Size is dummy coded as: 0 = Thin; 1 = Large. Moderator values and
significance regions were determined using the Johnson-Neyman technique. Bold-faced values
are significant at values of the moderator.
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
42
Table 5
Conditional Effects of Character Body Size (X) and Attractiveness Discrepancy (W) on State
Body Image
Study 1 – Career/Workplace Narrative (N = 249)
State Body Image (Y)
Predictors
b
SE
t
p
Body Size (X)
-0.87
0.26
-3.38
< .001
Attractiveness Discrepancy
-0.03
0.01
-5.60
< .001
Body Size x Attractiveness Discrepancy
0.04
0.01
-5.34
< .001
Model Summary: R2 = .36, F(3, 245) = 11.80, p < .001
Moderator:
Conditional Effects of X on Y at Values of Moderator
Attractiveness Discrepancy
b
SE
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
1.00
-0.83
0.25
-3.29
.001
-1.33
-0.33
11.47
-0.40
0.21
-1.97
.05
-0.81
0.00
30.46
0.37
0 .19
1.97
.05
0.00
0.74
50.00
1.17
0.27
4.34
< .001
0.64
1.70
98.00
3.13
0.59
5.26
< .001
1.96
4.30
Study 2 – Romance/Dating Narrative (N = 248)
State Body Image (Y)
Predictors
b
SE
t
p
Body Size (X)
0.52
0.27
-1.93
.05
Attractiveness Discrepancy
-0.03
0.01
-6.01
< .001
Body Size x Attractiveness Discrepancy
0.04
0.01
4.98
< .001
Model Summary: R2 = .40, F(3, 244) = 15.61, p < .001
Moderator:
Conditional Effects of X on Y at Values of Moderator
Attractiveness Discrepancy
b
SE
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
1.00
-0.49
0.27
-1.82
.07
-1.01
0.04
17.50
0.14
0.20
0.69
.49
-0.26
0.54
23.85
0.38
0.20
1.97
.05
0.00
0.76
56.00
1.60
0.30
5.27
< .001
1.00
2.20
100.00
3.27
0.60
5.43
< .001
2.08
4.45
Note. Character Body Size is dummy coded as: 0 = Thin; 1 = Large. Moderator values and
significance regions were determined using the Johnson-Neyman technique. Bold-faced values
are significant at values of the moderator.
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
43
Table 6
Conditional Effects of Character Body Esteem (X) and Subjective Well-Being Discrepancy (W)
on Aspiration (Y)
Study 1 – Career/Workplace Narrative (N = 249)
Aspiration (Y)
Predictors
b
SE
t
p
Body Esteem (X)
0.56
0.29
1.96
.05
Subjective Well-Being Discrepancy
-0.02
0.01
-2.32
.02
Body Esteem x Subjective Well-Being Discrepancy
0.03
0.01
2.71
.01
Model Summary: R2 = .37, F(3, 245) = 12.75, p < .001
Moderator:
Conditional Effects of X on Y at Values of Moderator
Subjective Well-Being Discrepancy
b
SE
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
0.04
0.56
0.29
1.97
.05
0.00
1.12
2.00
0.62
0.27
2.28
.02
0.08
1.15
13.33
0.94
0.21
4.46
< .001
0.52
1.35
41.00
1.72
0.30
5.73
< .001
1.13
2.32
95.00
3.25
0.81
4.00
< .001
1.65
4.86
Study 2 – Romance/Dating Narrative (N = 248)
Aspiration (Y)
Predictors
b
SE
t
p
Body Esteem (X)
0.36
0.28
1.29
.20
Subjective Well-Being Discrepancy
-0.01
0.01
-1.73
.09
Body Esteem x Subjective Well-Being Discrepancy
0.02
0.01
2.02
.045
Model Summary: R2 = .27, F(3, 244) = 6.42, p < .001
Moderator:
Conditional Effects of X on Y at Values of Moderator
Subjective Well-Being Discrepancy
b
SE
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
2.61
0.41
0.26
1.54
.12
-0.11
0.93
6.64
0.48
0.24
1.97
.05
0.00
0.96
15.00
0.62
0.21
2.98
.003
0.21
1.04
43.11
1.12
0.27
4.21
< .001
0.59
1.64
100.00
2.11
0.70
3.02
.003
0.74
3.49
Note. Character Body Esteem is dummy coded as: 0 = Low; 1 = High. Moderator values and
significance regions were determined using the Johnson-Neyman technique. Bold-faced values
are significant at values of the moderator.
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
44
Table 7
Conditional Effects of Character Body Esteem (X) and Subjective Well-Being Discrepancy (W)
on State Body Image (Y)
Study 1 – Career/Workplace Narrative (N = 249)
State Body Image (Y)
Predictors
b
SE
t
p
Body Esteem (X)
1.22
0.26
4.60
< .001
Subjective Well-Being Discrepancy
0.02
0.01
2.36
.02
Body Esteem x Subjective Well-Being Discrepancy
-0.04
0.01
-4.10
< .001
Model Summary: R2 = .30, F(3, 245) = 7.96, p < .001
Moderator:
Conditional Effects of X on Y at Values of Moderator
Subjective Well-Being Discrepancy
b
SE
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
2.00
1.14
0.25
4.53
< .001
0.64
1.63
13.33
0.69
0.20
3.53
< .001
0.30
1.07
21.41
0.37
0.19
1.97
.05
0.00
0.74
46.67
-0.63
0.32
-1.97
.05
-1.27
0.00
95.00
-2.55
0.75
-3.38
< .001
-4.04
-1.07
Study 2 – Romance/Dating Narrative (N = 248)
State Body Image (Y)
Predictors
b
SE
t
p
Body Esteem (X)
0.23
0.28
0.81
.42
Subjective Well-Being Discrepancy
0.001
0.01
0.10
.92
Body Esteem x Subjective Well-Being Discrepancy
-0.02
0.01
-2.66
.01
Model Summary: R2 = .25, F(3, 244) = 5.57, p = .001
Moderator:
Conditional Effects of X on Y at Values of Moderator
Subjective Well-Being Discrepancy
b
SE
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
2.61
0.17
0.27
0.63
.53
-0.36
0.70
15.00
-0.12
0.21
-0.58
.57
-0.54
0.30
26.95
-0.40
0.20
-1.97
.05
-0.80
0.00
43.11
-0.78
-0.27
-2.90
.004
-1.31
-0.25
100.00
-2.11
0.71
-2.98
.003
-3.51
-0.71
Note. Character Body Esteem is dummy coded as: 0 = Low; 1 = High. Moderator values and
significance regions were determined using the Johnson-Neyman technique. Bold-faced values
are significant at values of the moderator.
PROMOTING BODY POSITIVITY THROUGH STORIES
45
Author Contributions Statement (CRediT)
Megan A. Vendemia: Conceptualization; Methodology; Formal Analysis; Investigation;
Resources; Data Curation; Writing – Original Draft; Writing – Review & Editing; Supervision;
Project Administration
Melissa J. Robinson: Conceptualization; Methodology; Investigation; Writing – Original Draft;
Writing – Review & Editing; Supervision; Project Administration
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Robert G. Magee (Ph.D., University of North Carolina –
Chapel Hill) for his contributions to the original versions of the narrative stimuli and Kyla N.
Brathwaite (M.A., The Ohio State University) for her helpful feedback on this project. The lead
author would also like to extend a special thanks to her undergraduate research assistants in the
School of Communication at Chapman University: Rohan Chhabra, Jenisty Colón, Isabelle
Kunzmann, Ellie Su, and Steele Viverette.
Declarations of Interest: None
