How the Exposure to Beauty Ideals on Social Networking Sites Influences Body Image: A Systematic Review of Experimental Studies

A systematic review was deemed to be more feasible and meaningful than a meta-analysis due to wide variability in experimental stimuli and psychological moderators used in the published research. Such a review is needed in order to clarify which types of images that people view every day on SNSs have a negative impact on body image and for which types of individuals, as well as to obtain some indications regarding the effectiveness of body positive images in reducing body dissatisfaction.

Sample Characteristics

Sample characteristics of the studies included in the qualitative synthesis can be found in Table 1. Studies were published between 2012 and 2020. The half of the studies were conducted on Australian samples (n = 22) the remaining studies were conducted on samples from United States (n = 10), United Kingdom (n = 4), Netherlands (n = 2), China (n = 2), Canada (n = 1), Italy (n = 1), Japan (n = 1), Korea (n = 1), and Saudi Arabia (n = 1). Thirty-six studies recruited women samples, one study used a male sample and the remaining six used gender-mixed samples. Twenty-eight studies were conducted on undergraduate students, two studies on adolescents, and the remaining studies collected data from samples of young adults recruited on SNSs (n = 5), other websites (n = 1), and via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk; n = 5); two studies purposively sampled participants from active Instagram users. MTurk was chosen to recruit a more general and diverse sample not limited the 18–24 demographic typical of undergraduate students (Buhrmester et al., 2011).

The total sample consists of 8637 participants (% F = 89.56; mean age = 21.58 ± 1.78; range: 14.15–25.34 years old). Their mean BMI was 22.43 (SD = 1.99), which is in the “normal” weight range (Garrow & Webster, 1984). The 48.52% of the participants self-identified as Caucasian.

Types of Experimental Design

The majority of studies (n = 36) assessed the experimental effect using between subject, pretest and posttest designs; four studies conducted a between subject, posttest only design, whereas three studies used within subject, pretest and posttest designs. In pretest and posttest between subject studies, participants complete assessments of body image-related constructs, and then they are randomly assigned to different conditions. In the majority of studies (n = 32) participants were asked to view images taken from Instagram or Facebook depicting one or more idealized bodies (e.g., attractive, thin, fit; experimental condition) or images that are considered appearance-neutral (e.g., travel; control condition). Four studies (Brown & Tiggemann, 2020; Cohen et al., 2019; Davies et al., 2020; Tiggemann et al., 2020b) investigated the effect of viewing body positive images or captions compared to idealized or neutral images. Following the experimental manipulation, participants are asked to complete post-test measures of body image-related constructs. Three studies (Chansiri et al., 2020; Kim, 2020; Veldhuis et al., 2014) assessed the experimental effect of viewing idealized SNS images using post stimulus scores only. Finally, in pretest and posttest within subject studies (Alanazi et al., 2019; Krug et al., 2020; Yee et al., 2020) participants complete the baseline assessments of body image-related constructs, and then they are randomly exposed to all the different conditions (i.e., idealized and control images). After viewing each image, the participants completed post-test measures of body image-related constructs.

Generally, the included studies investigated the effect of brief (one-time) exposure to SNSs images on body image yielding two measurement occasions (i.e., before and immediately after the experimental manipulation). The time exposure ranged from one to 10 min. One study (Casale et al., 2019) considered a multiple exposure to Instagram attractive images for one week. Two studies (Krug et al., 2020; Yee et al., 2020) have experimentally examined the micro-longitudinal effects of viewing images on SNSs on body image using an Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) procedure for a 7-day period. EMA provides researchers access to the study of behavior in its natural context, whereas the majority of included studies were conducted in artificial settings (i.e., images were showed on a screen in laboratory or via online survey platforms).

Types of SNSs Images Used

Two different categories of SNSs images were used as experimental stimuli in the studies included in the present systematic review: (i) beauty ideal/idealized images, (ii) body positive images. All the images were taken from public Instagram, Facebook, Tumblr, WeChat profiles. Idealized images depict three main beauty ideals: attractive, thin and fit. It is important to note that even though the type of experimental stimulus from each study can be organized into these categories, each study had slight variations in how the images were presented for each category. For example, there were selfies and photos taken by others, images of peers and images of celebrities, full body shots, and shots of the person’s face. Moreover, in some studies pictures were accompanied by captions/messages/quotes (e.g., disclaimer captions-highlighting the unrealistic nature of social media content-, body positive messages, fitness inspirational quotes), or comments (e.g., idealized comments, critical comments), or hashtags, or the number of “likes” and followers. Generally, in the control condition participants were exposed to view appearance-neutral images—e.g., travel, landscapes, and architecture—(in 13 studies of the 43 included) or average size/overweight/unattractive bodies (in 8 studies of the 43 included). Three studies (Kleemans et al., 2018; Mills et al., 2018; Tiggemann & Zinoviev, 2019) used enhancement-free images (i.e., without filters and digital alteration), and three studies (Fardouly & Rapee, 2019; Politte-Corn & Fardouly, 2020; Tiggemann & Anderberg, 2019) used realistic representation of bodies (i.e., without make-up, showing cellulite or rolls of fat in a less flattering posture with less flattering lighting). Slater et al. (2019) used parody images of thin-ideal celebrity Instagram posts. In two studies (Casale et al., 2019; Sherlock & Wagstaff, 2018), participants in the control condition were not exposed to SNS images.

Attractive Beauty Ideal Images

Altogether 19 of the 43 studies presented here exposed their sample to attractive beauty ideal images. They comprise images of thin and attractive people taken from SNSs public profiles (mainly from Instagram) and rated highly attractive by the target population. Generally, the images were selfies, included only the target individual, and ranged from full body shots to close up shots of the person’s face. Women are depicted with makeup, wearing relatively tight or revealing clothing, or two-piece swimsuit, whereas men are shirtless. Four studies (Kleemans et al., 2018; Mills et al., 2018; Sampson et al., 2020; Tiggemann & Zinoviev, 2019) used explicitly manipulated photos (i.e., edited with effects and filters, and color alteration) where eye bags, wrinkles, and blemishes were removed, legs were reshaped to look thinner, and the waist was reshaped to look slimmer.

Thin Beauty Ideal Images

Thin beauty ideal images represent thin bodies for women and muscular bodies for men and were sourced from SNSs public profiles (mainly from Instagram) and rated thin by the target population. Altogether 19 of the 43 studies included exposed their participants to thin ideal images. Usually they included full-body shots of women with thin physiques either posing in bikinis, form-fitting fashion, and revealing outfits to emphasize their body shape. In four studies (Alanazi et al., 2019; Chansiri et al., 2020; Taniguchi & Lee, 2012, 2013; Veldhuis et al., 2014) thin ideal images demonstrated women having an extremely thin body (i.e., visibly low body mass index), and photos were taken from angles that visually emphasized the model’s thinness, particularly in terms of the model’s arms, waist, and the gap between her thighs. Only one study (Brichacek et al., 2018) was conducted on a sample composed by both men and women, in this case men were exposed to viewing muscular/lean bodies.

Fit Ideal Beauty Images

Altogether 10 of the 43 studies presented here exposed their sample to fit ideal images. They portrayed women/men with thin and toned bodies, posing in fitness clothing or engaging in exercise (e.g., running, squatting), showing visible muscular parts (e.g., abdominal muscle and upper arms). Images were sourced from public SNSs profiles (mainly from Instagram) using the search terms ‘#fitspo’ and ‘#fitspiration’.

Body Positive Images

Four studies (of the 43 included) exposed their sample to body positive images or captions.

‘Body positive’ refers to rejecting unrealistic body ideals and encouraging women to accept and love their bodies at any shape and size. Body positive images showed conventional and unconventional bodies presented with their flaws and imperfections as unique characteristics. Captions needed to be positive in tone, and focused on sentiments such as loving your body, life is more important than your body, and everybody is unique. Usually, body positive posts were sourced from public Instagram accounts (e.g., @bodyposipanda), and tend to depict larger women proudly posting their unique bodies and quotes about body acceptance.

Risk of Bias Within Studies

Results of the quality assessment for each study are presented in Table 2. Overall, 40 were rated to be of high quality, two were rated to be of neutral quality and one was rated to be of negative quality. The majority of studies (n = 28) were conducted on undergraduates, and therefore there is a risk that samples were not representative of young adults in general. All but three of the studies (i.e., those that have used a posttest only between subject design) had comparable experimental conditions prior to the manipulation, and therefore the results can be assumed to be due to the effects of the independent variables and not to pre-existing differences on the dependent variable between the groups. Twenty-one studies did not report how they handled withdrawals or the response rate. The majority of studies (n = 26) blinded participants to the purpose of the study by providing a cover story or a general/vague research title, helping to reduce the likelihood of response bias (i.e., demand characteristics). All the studies except one (Alanazi et al., 2019) used valid and reliable measures of body image and performed appropriate statistical analyses. For 18 studies it was not possible to determine whether a funding bias existed since they did not indicate whether the research was funded.

Table 2 Quality assessment of included studies using the Quality Criteria Checklist (QCC)Main Effects of Beauty Ideal Images on Body Image DimensionsBody Dissatisfaction

Altogether, 38 studies examined the impact of beauty ideal images on body dissatisfaction (i.e., the evaluative component of body image, that is, satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the body). The majority of the studies (n = 26) used visual analogue scales to measure body dissatisfaction/satisfaction. One study (Casale et al., 2019) used the Contour Drawing Rating Scale (Thompson & Gray, 1995) for women, and the Muscle Silhouette measure, and the Fat Silhouette measure (Frederick et al., 2007) for men. Two studies (Flynn, 2016; Levy & Blaszczynski, 2015) used the Body Areas Satisfaction Scale of the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire-Appearance Scales (Cash, 2000). Sampson et al. (2020) used the Body Satisfaction Scale (Slade et al., 1990), whereas three studies (Taniguchi & Lee, 2012, 2013; Veldhuis et al., 2014) used the Body Dissatisfaction Subscale from the Eating Disorder Inventory (Garner et al., 1983). Two studies (Brichacek et al., 2018; Kleemans et al., 2018) used the Body Image State Scale (Cash et al., 2002). Finally, two studies (Krug et al., 2020; Yee et al., 2020) adopted a single item approach (e.g., How do you feel about your level of body fat/level of muscularity right now?’ on an 11-point scale (0 = extremely dissatisfied, 10 = extremely satisfied), whereas Qi and Cui (2018) used two ad hoc items (i.e., participants indicated their current level of satisfaction and dissatisfaction (reverse-scored) with their weight on a 10-point scale (1 = not at all satisfied, 10 = very satisfied).

Among women, with respect to an attractive beauty ideal images versus appearance neutral images (e.g., travel, landscapes) comparison, exposure to attractive and thin bodies increased body dissatisfaction (Fardouly & Holland, 2018, β = 0.09; Brown & Tiggemann, 2016, ηp2 = 0.04; Brown & Tiggemann, 2020, ηp2 = 0.04; Livingston et al., 2020, d = 0.73; Mills et al., 2018, ηp2 = 0.06; Sampson et al., 2020, b = 2.39; Tamplin et al., 2018, ηp2 = 0.02) and facial dissatisfaction (Fardouly & Rapee, 2019, d = − 0.40) relative to travel/landscapes images. Contrarily, Flynn (2016) failed to find a significant effect of viewing body ideal profile pictures on users’ body satisfaction. However, when compared to viewing unattractive women, the exposure to attractive women images resulted in lower appearance satisfaction (Kim & Park, 2016, ηp2 = 0.05).

With respect to an attractive beauty ideal images versus non-exposure to Instagram images comparison, women exposed to real Instagram profiles of attractive women reported greater body dissatisfaction from pre-test to posttest (Casale et al., 2019, d = 0.26), whereas no changes in body dissatisfaction occurred in the control condition. When exposure to attractive idealized images were compared to view realistic representation of bodies (i.e., without make up, showing cellulite or rolls of fat in a less flattering posture with less flattering lighting), viewing the ideal images reduced body satisfaction compared to viewing the real images (Tiggemann & Anderberg, 2019, ηp2 = 0.02; Fardouly & Rapee, 2019; Politte-Corn & Fardouly, 2020, d = 0.21). Similarly, exposure to the thin and attractive women with make-up and digital color alteration images resulted in significantly higher facial dissatisfaction than viewing enhancement-free images (Tiggemann & Zinoviev, 2019, ηp2 = 0.03; Kleemans et al., 2018, r = 0.17). However no significant differences were found in physical attractiveness feelings between participants exposed to one’s own untouched selfie and participants exposed to one’s own retouched selfie (Mills et al., 2018). Finally, Tiggemann and Barbato (2018) found that exposure to attractive women images with positive appearance-related comments led to greater body dissatisfaction than exposure to the same attractive women images with place comments (ηp2 = 0.03). However, adding a reality check comment did reduce body dissatisfaction relative to the positive appearance comment alone (Tiggemann & Velissaris, 2020, ηp2 = 0.03).

With respect to a thin beauty ideal images versus appearance neutral images comparison, exposure to thinspiration images predicts greater state body dissatisfaction relative to exposure to the control images (Chansiri et al., 2020, β = 0.30; Brichacek et al., 2018, d = − 0.37; Cohen et al., 2019, ηp2 = 0.29; Qi & Cui, 2018, ηp2 = 0.07). With respect to a thin beauty ideal images versus average size women images comparison, exposure to the thin Instagram images elicited greater body dissatisfaction (Tiggemann et al., 2020a, ηp2 = 0.03; Tiggemann et al., 2020b, ηp2 = 0.07; Tiggemann et al., 2018, ηp2 = 0.07) and facial dissatisfaction (Tiggemann et al., 2020a, ηp2 = 0.06; Tiggemann et al., 2018, ηp2 = 0.02) than exposure to the average size bodies images. The same result was obtained comparing exposure to underweight bodies images to overweight bodies images (Taniguchi & Lee, 2013, β = 0.47). When exposure to thin-ideal celebrity images was compared to viewing parody images, acute exposure to parody images led to increased body satisfaction compared to exposure to the thin-ideal celebrity images alone (Slater et al.,

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif