(PS7-40) Examining the Utility of Pictorial Figure Rating Scales as a Measure of Body Dissatisfaction

Background: Pictorial figure rating scales are frequently used to assess body image disturbance via a discrepancy score calculated as the difference between an individual’s current and ideal figures. Whether this discrepancy score capture the same type of body dissatisfaction as traditional attitudinal measures remains debated and empirical tests of this are needed. The current study examined the validity of using pictorial measure discrepancy scores as a measure of attitudinal body dissatisfaction. It was hypothesized that pictorial figure discrepancy scores across body ideals (i.e., thin, curvy, muscular) would be positively associated self-reported body dissatisfaction, such that a larger discrepancy would be associated with greater self-reported body dissatisfaction.

 

Methods: The current study is a secondary data analysis of a sample of 457 college students (58.4% Female; M_age= 19.7) who self-identified as White (40%), Black (27.4%), or Hispanic (32.6%). Body dissatisfaction was measured using three pictorial and one text-based measure. Actual-ideal discrepancy scores were generated from pictorial measures of thinness (Stunkard Figure Rating Scale [SFRS]), curviness (Curvy Ideal Silhouette Scale [CISS]: Curvy and Body Fat dimensions), and muscularity (Body Image Matrix of Thinness and Muscularity [BIMTM]: Muscularity and Body Fat dimensions). The body dissatisfaction subscale of the Eating Pathology Symptom Inventory (EPSI) also was collected. All participants completed the EPSI, SFRS, and BIMTM measures; only women completed the CISS.

 Data Analytic Plan: Three hierarchical linear regressions included the pictorial figure discrepancy score as the independent variable and the EPSI Body Dissatisfaction score as the dependent variable, and controlled for BMI, current pictorial figure, and sex.

 

Results: Consistent with hypotheses, a larger discrepancy on the SFRS was associated with greater self-reported body dissatisfaction (b=1.53, p< .001). A larger discrepancy on the body fat dimension of the CISS was associated with greater self-reported body dissatisfaction (b=.97, p=.05), but the curvy dimension discrepancy score was not significantly associated with the EPSI body dissatisfaction scores. Similarly, a larger discrepancy on the body fat dimension of the BIMTM was associated with greater self-reported body dissatisfaction (b=.73, p=.01), but the muscularity discrepancy score was not significant.

 

Conclusions: Findings suggest that pictorial measures may be appropriate to capture thinness-related dissatisfaction in college students, but not dissatisfaction with muscularity or curviness. Additional research is needed to understand whether this reflects a limitation of pictorial scales or the EPSI Body Dissatisfaction subscale to adequately capture non-thinness body image disturbance.