Always Greener on the Other Side:
Within-Gender and Between-Gender Upward Social Comparisons
Sarah Lamer
Regardless of age, weight, ethnicity, or gender, body image and
self-esteem are pertinent issues. Body image insecurity leads many to unhealthy
fitness and nutrition practices in search of the ideal. According to a 2010 press release by the
National Organization of Women, “a startling 49 percent of 3 to 6 year old
girls worry about being fat.” Cindy Jackson, age 55, recently set the World
Record for having undergone the most plastic surgeries: a staggering 52 (Watt
& Clarke, 2011). Various advocacy campaigns to counteract body image
insecurities have been designed.
Operation Beautiful, for example, encourages positive self-talk among
women and seeks to counteract some of the startling trends in body insecurity
(Boyle, 2011).
Social comparisons, according to Festinger’s (1954) Social Comparison Theory, are valuable sources of feedback for people to maintain accurate self-concepts. In reference to appearance, however, the benefits of social comparisons have caused a significant amount of controversy. Researchers who study physical attractiveness comparisons have taken a skeptical view of Social Comparison Theory (Langer, Pirson, & Delizonna, 2010). This is because the theory neglects to account for the negative effects caused by false images and unrealistic expectations.
Gurari, Hetts, and Strube (2006) researched the implicit, self-report, and behavioral effects of exposure to idealized media portrayals. Seventy-one female undergraduate students between the ages of 18 and 22 participated in their research. The researchers aimed to measure self-esteem and behavioral changes among participants who had viewed unrealistic female beauty standards as compared to a control group. They used an implicit self-evaluation method to measure the speed of responding to attractive or ugly target words. Results indicated that the women were significantly less likely to associate themselves, their in-group, or their gender with attractive target words and more likely to associate with ugly target words following exposure. Researchers also used several explicit measures, including the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire. The only significant difference they found on these self-report measures was a higher importance of appearance in the MBSRQ Appearance Orientation subscale. They also used behavioral measures to assess internalization of beauty ideals. Women who had seen the unrealistic advertisements ate significantly less junk food than those in the control condition. Though explicit responses were mostly insignificant, behavioral measures found significance. These results emphasize the importance of continued research on social comparisons. The explicit body image dissatisfaction measures were ineffective, indicating that the impact of social comparisons may be stronger than realized.
Bailey and Ricciardelli (2010) investigated how positive and negative appearance-related comments correlated with the tendency to make upward or downward social comparisons. They also investigated the relationship of appearance-related comments and social comparison tendencies with body dissatisfaction and disordered eating. One hundred ninety-six women between the ages of 18 and 35 participated by responding to self-report measures; they reported negative and positive appearance-related comments received, social comparisons made, and disordered eating attitudes and behaviors. Bailey and Ricciardelli found that the tendency to make upward social comparisons had a significant positive correlation with the amount of negative comments received; conversely, the amount of downward social comparisons had a significant positive correlation with the amount of positive comments received. These findings indicate that the negative appearance-related comments children hear may predispose them to making upward comparisons later on in life. These comments may also lead them to have body image concerns.
Patrick, Neighbors, and Knee (2004) investigated how self-esteem contingency was linked to the likelihood of making social comparisons. Each of two studies they conducted had 88 female undergraduate participants between the ages of 18 and 44. In the first study, they investigated participants’ automaticity of comparisons by asking them to rate either the woman in an advertisement or the quality of the advertisement. They found that women higher in contingent self-esteem (CSE) were more likely to compare themselves to the woman in the advertisement even if they had not been prompted to rate her. In the second study, the researchers investigated the frequency of social comparisons in daily life. They used a journaling method to document that 51.8% of comparisons were unintended and overwhelmingly conducted more often with strangers than with famous people, friends, or acquaintances. Women felt better after downward comparisons and worse after upward comparisons based on post-comparison affect. The frequency of social comparisons, therefore, is linked to the level of contingent self-esteem; the post-comparison affect is positively correlated with the upward or downward direction of the comparison. This research suggests methods of controlling affect by controlling the number of upward comparisons made.
Montoya (2008) researched how people’s behavior regarding relationships is related to their subjective self-perceptions of attractiveness. Participants were 95 heterosexual men and women; three of the four studies were conducted with participants not in committed relationships due to the types of questions asked. Montoya studied how participants’ objective physical attractiveness ratings (averaged by outside raters) and subjective physical attractiveness ratings (personal ratings) correlated with how they judged other people’s attractiveness, the likelihood of being in a relationship with them, the likelihood of being rejected by them, and the enjoyment of being in a relationship with them. In study 1, participants rated a target’s physical attractiveness and had their own pictures taken. Researchers asked an additional set of participants to then rate the participants’ pictures leading to an objective physical attractiveness rating. Study 1 showed that the objective physical attractiveness of the participant correlated negatively with how the participant rated a target’s physical attractiveness; the more attractive the participant, the less attractive she or he rated the target. Study 2 showed that, as participants’ objective physical attractiveness decreased, their ratings of expected satisfaction from being in a relationship with a particular target increased. In study 3, the researchers investigated subjective self-evaluations of attractiveness; the more attractive participants believed themselves to be, the less fear they had of rejection. Study 4 showed that expected likelihood of being in a relationship positively correlated with the objective physical attractiveness of the participant. This research sheds light on the benefits of a higher subjective physical attractiveness rating; the subjective physical attractiveness rating serves as the upper limit for the range of potential targets with whom one might imagine being in a relationship with.
Langer, Pirson, and Delizonna (2010) researched mindfulness as a buffer to the consequences of upward and downward social comparisons. Their study included 82 students. The study had three conditions. The control group made no social comparisons and had no mindfulness training. The second group made social comparisons, upward and downward, without mindfulness training. The third group had mindfulness training and then made social comparisons, upward and downward. Langer et al. found that when participants made social comparisons, either upward or downward, they perceived their own performance on the drawing task they were assigned less positively. Higher trait mindfulness, as measured by the Langer Mindfulness Scale, had a significant positive relationship with enjoyment of drawing and drawing ability. In contrast to Festinger’s (1954) Social Comparison Theory, which indicates that social comparisons are improvement strategies, the results of Langer et al.’s study indicate that social comparisons, both upward and downward, tend to limit self-perceptions of ability and inhibit performance. This study also indicated the effectiveness of trait mindfulness and points to mindfulness as a potential buffer within a society focused on competition. Mindfulness training, therefore, may serve as a key to body dissatisfaction prevention efforts.
Jones (2001) studied gender differences in attractiveness criteria as well as social comparisons targets. Jones conducted two studies on these concepts. In the first, participants were 42 girls and 38 boys in ninth and tenth grade. Ninety-eight percent were White and middle- to upper-class. Participants were each asked to describe an ideally attractive adolescent girl and adolescent boy. In their descriptions of an ideally attractive adolescent girl, the boys noted intelligence, style, and popularity significantly less often than did girls. In their descriptions of an ideally attractive adolescent boy, the boys noted face, personality, and intelligence significantly less often than did girls. Study 2 included 174 seventh graders and 241 tenth graders. That study showed that physical attributes were significantly more likely than personality attributes to be the target of comparison for girls. When comparing themselves on style, personality, or popularity, however, girls were more likely to make social comparisons with peers than with celebrities or models. Boys were equally likely to make comparisons to peers or celebrities for personality attributes. In study one, the ideal girl was more likely to be described with a weight criterion, whereas the ideal boy was more likely to be described with a shape/build criterion. Jones’s study highlights the criteria for attractiveness and where adolescents find messages about their criteria. It also highlights some key gender differences in qualities worth making comparisons about.
The Present Study
There are two main underdeveloped areas in the current research on physical attractiveness and social comparisons: between-gender social comparisons and the dynamics of how men make social comparisons. I made these issues central in the present study and also incorporated mindfulness, personality, and social comparison orientation to understand the affective responses to social comparisons. This research was designed to investigate upward social comparisons and their effects on positive and negative affect. In the present study, I compared between-gender and within-gender upward social comparison affect fluctuations among heterosexual women and men. As upward social comparisons have been found to correlate negatively with post-comparison affect, it is important to understand the intersection of sexual attraction, the socialization of the beauty ideal, and Social Comparison Theory. Based on previous research, the following hypotheses were developed:
Hypothesis 1.Mindfulness scores on the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) would have a significant positive correlation with self-esteem scores on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE).;
Hypothesis 2. Participants in the within-gender condition would react significantly more negatively on the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) than participants in the between-gender condition on the negative and positive subscales; participants were expected to become more negative and less positive when seeing pictures of people of the same gender;
Hypothesis 3. Mindfulness scores on the Mindful Attentive Awareness Scale (MAAS) would have a significant negative correlation with negative affect scores on the PANAS;
Hypothesis 4. Self-esteem scores on the RSE would positively correlate with how “attainable” beauty was believed to be;
Hypothesis 5. Participants with higher social comparison orientation scores on any subscale (upward, downward, or general) of the Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Scale (INCOM) would have significantly higher negative and lower positive affect scores on the PANAS than those with lower social comparisons.
Method
Participants
Seventy students (fifty heterosexual women and 20 heterosexual men) at a small, liberal arts college participated in the present study for course credit. Data from participants who identified as bisexual or homosexual were not included in analyses. Twenty-seven women were randomly assigned to the within-gender condition and 23 were randomly assigned to the between-gender condition. Ten men were randomly assigned to the within-gender condition and 10 men were randomly assigned to the between-gender condition. Eighty percent of participants identified as White or European American, seven percent identified as Asian, four percent identified as Hispanic or Latina/o, and three percent identified as Black or African American. Sixty-four percent of participants identified their relationship status as single, 26 percent said they were in a monogamous relationship, nine percent said they were casually dating, and one percent said they were married. The average age of participants was 19.27 years.
Materials
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). The PANAS is a 20-item scale (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) used to measure affect fluctuation on two subscales: positive and negative. The scale can detect changes in affect after a priming task, between weeks, or over a period time. Participants rated their extent of experiencing a variety of state mood characteristics at the present moment (1=Very slightly or not at all to 5=Extremely). For example, participants were asked to rate adjectives such as “jittery,” “enthusiastic,” and “hostile.” The order of the adjectives was randomized in order to dispel any primacy or fatigue effects. Subscale scores can range from 10 to 50. Higher scores indicate higher positivity or higher negativity. The PANAS has good overall reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of .88 for the Positive Affect subscale and .85 for the Negative Affect subscale (Watson & Clark, 1994). The Cronbach’s alpha for the sample in the present study before the priming task was .91 for the Positive Affect subscale and .88 for the Negative Affect subscale. The Cronbach’s alpha after priming was .93 for the Positive Affect subscale and .85 for the Negative Affect subscale.
Priming task. The priming task asked participants to make either between-gender or within-gender upward social comparisons. There were four different conditions: Between-Gender Man to Woman, Within-Gender Man to Man, Within-Gender Woman to Woman, and Between-Gender Woman to Man. Participants were shown pictures of either three attractive women or three attractive men, one at a time. The pictures were chosen based on ratings from the Feminist Psychology Research Group, which is comprised of about 10 women from the campus community. Although race was a consideration in choosing the pictures, it was more important to replicate the cultural ideal in order to secure an upward social comparison. After each picture, the participants were asked to answer a variety of questions on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Not at All to 7 = Very) to assess the attractiveness and perceptions of the man or woman in the picture. For example, participants were asked to rate “this woman’s/man’s overall physical attractiveness,” “how likely a man/woman is to want to date her/him,” and “how assertive you believe she/he is.” Of note was the question that asked participants to rate “the attractiveness of her/his shape or build” based on a study on adolescent girls and boys assessing the criteria of ideal beauty (Jones, 2001). Although these items yielded interesting results, the intent was for participants to make upward social comparisons on the basis of physical attractiveness. To this end, each priming task was concluded by asking the participant “Who is the most physically attractive woman/man you know of?” and “What makes this woman/man attractive?” The participant was then required to make an upward social comparison even if looking at the pictures had failed to make her or him do so. The participant then completed the same Likert scale questions as they had for the first three pictures in order to assure that an upward comparison had been made and in order to assess the attractiveness and perceptions of the chosen woman or man.
Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS). The Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale is a 15-item scale (Brown & Ryan, 2003) used to measure trait mindfulness. Participants rated their frequency (1=Almost Always to 6=Almost Never) of behaviors or tendencies related to attention and mindfulness in daily life. For example, participants were asked questions such as “I tend to walk quickly to get where I’m going without paying attention to what I experience along the way” and “I find myself preoccupied with the future or the past.” Scores could range from 1 to 6; responses were averaged across the 15 items. Higher scores indicate a greater degree of trait mindfulness. The MAAS has good reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of .87 (Brown & Ryan, 2003). It had comparable reliability for the sample in the present study with a Cronbach’s alpha of .83.
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE). The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale is a 10-item scale (Rosenberg, 1965) that measures global levels of self-esteem. Participants rate their agreement (1=Strongly Agree to 5=Strongly Disagree) with a variety of items such as “I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others” and “I feel that I have a number of good qualities.” Scores can range from 0 to 30. Scores between 15 and 25 are considered normal. The RSE has good reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of .78 (Rosenberg, 1965). The RSE had good reliability for the present sample with a Cronbach’s alpha of .91.
Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Scale (INCOM). The INCOM scale is a 27-item scale (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999) used to measure the tendency to make upward or downward social comparisons. Participants rate their agreement (1=I disagree strongly to 5=I agree strongly) with a variety of statements regarding attention to others and comparisons made in daily life. For example, participants respond to items such as “I often compare how my loved ones (boy or girlfriend, family members, etc.) are doing with how others are doing” and “I often compare myself with others with respect to what I have accomplished in life.” Scores (i.e., a mean taken for each subscale) can range from 1 to 5. Higher scores on the General Social Comparisons subscale indicate a greater tendency to make social comparisons. A higher score on the Downward Comparisons subscale indicates a greater tendency to make downward social comparisons. A higher score on the Upward Comparisons subscale indicates a greater tendency to make upward social comparisons. The INCOM scale has good reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of .83 (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999). The scale had good reliability in the present sample with a Cronbach’s alpha of .83.
Perceptions of attractiveness and beauty (PAB). This is a 20-item measure designed for the present study. It asks about self-perceptions of attractiveness and general perceptions of beauty. The first 11 items mirror those of the priming task in which participants were asked to rate the woman or man in the picture on a variety of attractiveness and personality-related qualities. In these items, however, participants rate themselves. They are asked at the end of this section “what makes you attractive” in order to collect qualitative data on personal criteria for attractiveness. The second section of eight questions asks about beauty such as “To what extent do you believe beauty is attainable?” and “To what extent do you believe the definition of beauty is ‘in the eye of the beholder’/varies from person to person?” to which participants respond on a scale from 1 to 7 (1=Not at all to 7=Very Much).
Demographic questionnaire. Participants were asked questions regarding sex, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and relationship status.
Procedure
When participants followed the link provided in their e-mails, they were taken to the survey located on qualtrics.com. They were asked to read and agree to an informed consent before beginning the survey. Participants were administered all parts of the study online in one session through the web-based survey software system. Participants first completed two demographics questions (age and sex) in order to randomize the priming task accurately; if a participant responded that their sex was female, for example, they were randomly presented with either the Between-Gender Woman to Man or Within-Gender Woman to Woman condition. Participants were asked to complete the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), before and after the randomized priming task. They were then presented with the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE), and the Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Scale (INCOM scale). This order was chosen rather than randomized because the INCOM scale most closely related to the priming task and could cause participants to develop hypotheses about the purpose of the research too easily. The MAAS was least similar or associated with the priming task and was thus chosen to go directly after the PANAS to distract the participant and maintain the integrity of the study. Participants then completed the questionnaire designed for this study and the remainder of the demographics (race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and relationship status) items. They were then shown the debriefing form.
Results
Hypotheses Testing
A Pearson’s correlation was conducted to test the hypothesis that mindfulness scores on the MAAS would have a significant positive correlation with self-esteem scores on the RSE. Results supported this hypothesis; mindfulness positively correlated with self-esteem, r (68) = .45, p < .001.
A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to test the hypothesis that participants in the within-gender condition would react significantly more negatively on the PANAS than participants in the between-gender condition. The hypothesis was rejected. Within-gender groups did not significantly differ from between-gender groups on the positive subscale, t (66) = -.57, p = .57, or the negative subscale, t (66) = .66, p = .51. Means for each subscale were calculated by subtracting the pretest PANAS subscale score from the posttest subscale score. Negative scores on the positive subscale, therefore, indicate less positivity after the priming task. Negative scores on the negative subscale indicate less negativity after the priming task. Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 1.
A Pearson’s correlation was conducted in order to test the hypothesis that mindfulness scores on the MAAS would have a significant negative correlation with negative affect subscale scores on the PANAS. Results partially supported this hypothesis; MAAS scores negatively correlated with negative affect subscale scores from the posttest PANAS, r (67) = -.268, p = .028. There was no significant correlation between mindfulness and the negative affect subscale scores from the pretest PANAS, r (68) = -.213, p = .082
A Pearson’s correlation was conducted in order to test the hypothesis that self-esteem scores on the RSE would correlate positively with how ‘attainable’ beauty was believed to be. Results supported the hypothesis; the perceived attainability of beauty positively correlated with overall physical attractiveness scores, r (70) = .254, p = .034.
Pearson’s correlations were conducted in order to test the hypothesis that participants with higher social comparison orientation scores on any subscale (upward, downward, or general) of the INCOM would have significantly higher negative affect subscale scores and lower positive affect subscale scores on the posttest PANAS. Results rejected this hypothesis. There were no significant correlations between the positive affect subscale scores and the upward social comparison subscale, r (64) = .155, p = .221, the downward social comparison subscale, r (64) = -.075, p = .555, or the general social comparison subscale, r (65) = .009, p = .943. There were also no significant correlations between the negative affect subscale and the upward social comparison subscale, r (64) = -.101, p = .428, the downward social comparison subscale, r (64) = .019, p = .880, or the general social comparison subscale, r (65) = .041, p = .743.
Additional Findings
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to test differences in PANAS scores for each of the four experimental groups. Results indicated that there were significant differences on the PANAS positive subscale, F (3, 64) = 3.41, p = .023. A Tukey post-hoc test revealed that men in the within-gender group scored significantly less positively on the PANAS positive subscale than men in the between-gender group, p = .023. Means were calculated for each subscale by subtracting the pretest from the posttest PANAS subscale score. Means and standard deviations are shown in Table 2.
An independent samples t-test revealed that participants who noted self-confidence as a factor in their definitions of beauty had significantly lower self-esteem scores than participants who did not, t (69) = -2.5, p = .015. Means were calculated by averaging the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale scores, which can range from 1 to 4, where 1 is low self-esteem and 4 is high self-esteem. Means and standard deviations are reported in Table 3.
An independent samples t-test revealed that women (M = 3.86, SD = 1.34, N = 50 ) rated “how likely a man/woman is to want to date you” as significantly lower than men did (M = 4.7, SD = 1.22, N = 20), t (68) = -2.429, p = .018.
A chi-square analysis indicated that women were significantly more likely than men to note sociability as a factor of their own attractiveness, X2 (1, N = 74) = 4.34, p = .037. Percentages are presented in Table 4.
Discussion
Results from the present study supported several of my hypotheses. Hypothesis 1, that mindfulness would positively correlate with self-esteem, was supported. Hypothesis 3, that mindfulness would negatively correlate with negative affect, was partially supported. Mindfulness negatively correlated with one of the negative affect measures. Hypothesis 4, that self-esteem would positively correlate with the perceived ‘attainability’ of beauty, was supported.
Two hypotheses were rejected. Hypothesis 2, that participants in the within-gender conditions would report more negative affect after priming than participants in the between-gender conditions, was rejected. Hypothesis 5, that a higher social comparison orientation would correlate with a negative affective reaction, was rejected.
There were also some interesting, but unanticipated, additional findings. Men were significantly less positive after having rated other men than they were after having rated women. Participants who noted self-confidence in their definitions of beauty had significantly lower self-esteem. Women rated the likelihood of a man or woman wanting to date them as significantly lower than men did. Women also indicated sociability as a factor of their attractiveness significantly more often than men did.
Results were inconclusive with regard to the primary purpose of this study: investigating between-gender and within-gender upward social comparisons. The results did, however, indicate conclusions on mindfulness, affect, and perceptions of attractiveness and beauty.
Mindfulness
Results from the present study support prior research on mindfulness. Langer et al.’s (2010) findings support mindfulness as a buffer to the long and short-term effects of upward and downward social comparisons. In the present study, mindfulness positively correlated with self-esteem and negatively correlated with the posttest PANAS negative affect scores. This indicates that mindfulness may be able to impact self-esteem positively and to decrease negativity. These results suggest the usefulness of mindfulness therapy for those suffering from body image concerns.
Affective Responses
The present study yielded inconclusive results regarding affective responses to between-gender and within-gender upward social comparisons. A larger sample size or the use of implicit measures might have yielded significant differences that the PANAS was not sensitive enough to detect. Mean differences between the four experimental groups showed interesting trends, which suggests that more sensitive measures might show significance (see Table 2). On the positive affect subscale, for example, men who rated women showed the only increase. It is interesting that women who rated men had notable decreases in positive affect, greater than that of women who rated women.
Additional findings indicated a significant decrease in men’s positivity after having rated other men. Previous studies have not measured men’s reactions to rating other men on attractiveness. Homophobia may have contributed to this affective response. According to Kimmel (1997), homophobia is a recognizable aspect of masculine gender role conflict. Another contributor may have been the cultural standard that links the traditional feminine gender role with a focus on appearance (Lips, 2006). This may contribute to the expectation that it is appropriate for anyone to judge women based on appearance but that judging men based on appearance is acceptable only when it relates to potential romantic or sexual relations. Results support this as there were no significant differences in affect between women who completed the between or within-gender priming tasks.
Women who rated other women showed no significant negative affect response to the priming task. As mentioned in the literature review, this result may be due to limited sensitivity of explicit measures (Gurari et al., 2006). This result may also be attributable to a variety of mediating variables. The research on this topic has highlighted several factors that mediate affect response to upward social comparisons. Some research showed that body dissatisfaction, for example, predicted negative affect response; body-satisfied women were not affected by upward social comparisons while body-dissatisfied women were (Trampe, Stapel, & Siero, 2007). In other research, social comparison tendencies and appearance orientation mediated the affective response to social comparisons (Shomaker & Furman, 2007). Therefore, insignificant results from the present study may be because the women in the sample were primarily body-satisfied or there were other mediating factors that limited a negative affective response to the priming task.
Perceptions of Attractiveness and Beauty
The present study yielded interesting findings regarding perceptions of attractiveness and beauty. The extent to which beauty was perceived to be ‘attainable’ positively correlated with self-esteem. This finding supports previous research that indicates that having an internal locus of control and perceived agency benefits self-esteem (Guvenc & Aktas, 2006). Self-esteem also positively correlated with participants’ overall physical attractiveness ratings of themselves. Although causation cannot be determined, the two factors could have bolstered each other. Self-esteem may enhance self-perceptions of physical attractiveness and self-perceptions of physical attractiveness may enhance self-esteem. Self-esteem scores also related to some qualitative data taken from the perceptions of attractiveness and beauty questionnaire. Those who indicated self-confidence in their definitions of beauty had significantly lower self-esteem. People with lower self-esteem, therefore, are sensitive to their lack of confidence and may perceive it as a deficit in their own attractiveness.
The perceptions of beauty and attractiveness questionnaire also revealed interesting gender differences. Men rated ”how likely a man/woman is to want to date you” as significantly higher than women did. This finding supports previous research on gender roles. Women have been found to underestimate their skills and abilities whereas men often exaggerate theirs (Lips, 2006). This may also reflect the gender distribution at the college where participants were recruited; there are significantly fewer men than women at the college, which may contribute to this difference in “dateability”. Gender differences were also found in the qualitative analysis of what participants identified as factors of their attractiveness. Women were significantly more likely to indicate sociability as a factor than were men. This supports the feminine gender role expectation that women should be relationally oriented (Lips, 2006). Women, for example, are expected to maintain relations with other couples and family members once in heterosexual relationships.
The present study supports our understanding of masculinity and femininity as traditional gender roles relate to perceptions of attractiveness and beauty (Lips, 2006). It also yields support for research that indicates homophobia as a factor of masculine gender role conflict (Kimmel, 1997). The present study supports the understanding of how the overall concepts of attractiveness and beauty can affect self-perceptions and self-esteem (Jones, 2001; Montoya, 2008; Patrick et al.,2008 ; Bailey & Ricciardelli, 2010; Gurari et al., 2006). This study also supports previous research on the positive impact of mindfulness on these self-perceptions. The present study suggests ways in which therapy can enhance awareness about negative implicit attitudes regarding the body and body satisfaction. In reference to Social Comparison Theory, the present study supports previous research that has called attention to the potentially negative impacts of social comparisons. Digitally enhanced images limit the benefits of maintaining accurate self-concepts.
Limitations
There were several limitations to the present study. The small number of men in the sample limited the conclusions able to be made. The sample may not be representative of the population, and one participant could easily have skewed the means. On the ratings of men in the priming task, for example, one participant skewed the data significantly by designating a 1 to all items regarding attractiveness. This does bring attention, however, to the homophobia fears that may have fueled these results.
There were also potential limitations with use of the Negative Affect Scale of the PANAS. It used several adjectives, such as “afraid” and “scared” that go against the masculine gender role. Thus, this scale may not have yielded accurate reflection of negative affect fluctuation in men. Participants of both genders were also much more willing to indicate fluctuations in positivity than negativity. If another method of detecting mood change had been used, a change in negative affect might have been more easily detected.
In addition, implicit measures of attitude have been shown to gauge affective response more adequately than explicit self-report measures, such as the PANAS (Gurari et al., 2006). Implicit measures such as the Implicit Attitudes Test may be more suited to adequately identifying affect response to within-gender and between-gender upward social comparisons.
Practical and Theoretical Implications
Given the small size, it is not practical to generalize these results to all people within the tested age group. People who are older may also answer differently than the college-aged participants in this sample. The limitation in the men’s sample size, in particular, restricts the generalizability of significant gender differences to the entire population. Personal perceptions of beauty such as “how likely a woman/man is to want to date you,” may also have been affected by sociocultural expectations particular to the college campus that students were recruited from.
Despite limitations on generalizability of results from the present study, the results introduce interesting future research directions.
Future Directions
Based on results from the present study, future researchers should investigate between-gender and within-gender upward social comparisons using implicit measurements of affective response. This might eliminate the confounding impact of homophobia on affect response as well as the inadequacy of the negative affect scale of the PANAS to measure men’s mood responses.
In terms of samples, future researchers should test a larger sample of men as well as participants from a range of college campuses to account for confounds particular to the social environment surrounding heterosexual interactions at a particular college. Future researchers should also take into account sexual orientation and compare affect reaction among homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual populations.
Future researchers should also investigate the role of mindfulness specifically related to body image. The INCOM scale yielded no reliable results. The results of the present study in combination with previous research indicates, therefore, that other scales, such as the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire or the Contingent Self-Esteem scale as used in Patrick, et al,’s (2004) research on self-esteem contingency might be more informative.
References
Social comparisons, according to Festinger’s (1954) Social Comparison Theory, are valuable sources of feedback for people to maintain accurate self-concepts. In reference to appearance, however, the benefits of social comparisons have caused a significant amount of controversy. Researchers who study physical attractiveness comparisons have taken a skeptical view of Social Comparison Theory (Langer, Pirson, & Delizonna, 2010). This is because the theory neglects to account for the negative effects caused by false images and unrealistic expectations.
Gurari, Hetts, and Strube (2006) researched the implicit, self-report, and behavioral effects of exposure to idealized media portrayals. Seventy-one female undergraduate students between the ages of 18 and 22 participated in their research. The researchers aimed to measure self-esteem and behavioral changes among participants who had viewed unrealistic female beauty standards as compared to a control group. They used an implicit self-evaluation method to measure the speed of responding to attractive or ugly target words. Results indicated that the women were significantly less likely to associate themselves, their in-group, or their gender with attractive target words and more likely to associate with ugly target words following exposure. Researchers also used several explicit measures, including the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire. The only significant difference they found on these self-report measures was a higher importance of appearance in the MBSRQ Appearance Orientation subscale. They also used behavioral measures to assess internalization of beauty ideals. Women who had seen the unrealistic advertisements ate significantly less junk food than those in the control condition. Though explicit responses were mostly insignificant, behavioral measures found significance. These results emphasize the importance of continued research on social comparisons. The explicit body image dissatisfaction measures were ineffective, indicating that the impact of social comparisons may be stronger than realized.
Bailey and Ricciardelli (2010) investigated how positive and negative appearance-related comments correlated with the tendency to make upward or downward social comparisons. They also investigated the relationship of appearance-related comments and social comparison tendencies with body dissatisfaction and disordered eating. One hundred ninety-six women between the ages of 18 and 35 participated by responding to self-report measures; they reported negative and positive appearance-related comments received, social comparisons made, and disordered eating attitudes and behaviors. Bailey and Ricciardelli found that the tendency to make upward social comparisons had a significant positive correlation with the amount of negative comments received; conversely, the amount of downward social comparisons had a significant positive correlation with the amount of positive comments received. These findings indicate that the negative appearance-related comments children hear may predispose them to making upward comparisons later on in life. These comments may also lead them to have body image concerns.
Patrick, Neighbors, and Knee (2004) investigated how self-esteem contingency was linked to the likelihood of making social comparisons. Each of two studies they conducted had 88 female undergraduate participants between the ages of 18 and 44. In the first study, they investigated participants’ automaticity of comparisons by asking them to rate either the woman in an advertisement or the quality of the advertisement. They found that women higher in contingent self-esteem (CSE) were more likely to compare themselves to the woman in the advertisement even if they had not been prompted to rate her. In the second study, the researchers investigated the frequency of social comparisons in daily life. They used a journaling method to document that 51.8% of comparisons were unintended and overwhelmingly conducted more often with strangers than with famous people, friends, or acquaintances. Women felt better after downward comparisons and worse after upward comparisons based on post-comparison affect. The frequency of social comparisons, therefore, is linked to the level of contingent self-esteem; the post-comparison affect is positively correlated with the upward or downward direction of the comparison. This research suggests methods of controlling affect by controlling the number of upward comparisons made.
Montoya (2008) researched how people’s behavior regarding relationships is related to their subjective self-perceptions of attractiveness. Participants were 95 heterosexual men and women; three of the four studies were conducted with participants not in committed relationships due to the types of questions asked. Montoya studied how participants’ objective physical attractiveness ratings (averaged by outside raters) and subjective physical attractiveness ratings (personal ratings) correlated with how they judged other people’s attractiveness, the likelihood of being in a relationship with them, the likelihood of being rejected by them, and the enjoyment of being in a relationship with them. In study 1, participants rated a target’s physical attractiveness and had their own pictures taken. Researchers asked an additional set of participants to then rate the participants’ pictures leading to an objective physical attractiveness rating. Study 1 showed that the objective physical attractiveness of the participant correlated negatively with how the participant rated a target’s physical attractiveness; the more attractive the participant, the less attractive she or he rated the target. Study 2 showed that, as participants’ objective physical attractiveness decreased, their ratings of expected satisfaction from being in a relationship with a particular target increased. In study 3, the researchers investigated subjective self-evaluations of attractiveness; the more attractive participants believed themselves to be, the less fear they had of rejection. Study 4 showed that expected likelihood of being in a relationship positively correlated with the objective physical attractiveness of the participant. This research sheds light on the benefits of a higher subjective physical attractiveness rating; the subjective physical attractiveness rating serves as the upper limit for the range of potential targets with whom one might imagine being in a relationship with.
Langer, Pirson, and Delizonna (2010) researched mindfulness as a buffer to the consequences of upward and downward social comparisons. Their study included 82 students. The study had three conditions. The control group made no social comparisons and had no mindfulness training. The second group made social comparisons, upward and downward, without mindfulness training. The third group had mindfulness training and then made social comparisons, upward and downward. Langer et al. found that when participants made social comparisons, either upward or downward, they perceived their own performance on the drawing task they were assigned less positively. Higher trait mindfulness, as measured by the Langer Mindfulness Scale, had a significant positive relationship with enjoyment of drawing and drawing ability. In contrast to Festinger’s (1954) Social Comparison Theory, which indicates that social comparisons are improvement strategies, the results of Langer et al.’s study indicate that social comparisons, both upward and downward, tend to limit self-perceptions of ability and inhibit performance. This study also indicated the effectiveness of trait mindfulness and points to mindfulness as a potential buffer within a society focused on competition. Mindfulness training, therefore, may serve as a key to body dissatisfaction prevention efforts.
Jones (2001) studied gender differences in attractiveness criteria as well as social comparisons targets. Jones conducted two studies on these concepts. In the first, participants were 42 girls and 38 boys in ninth and tenth grade. Ninety-eight percent were White and middle- to upper-class. Participants were each asked to describe an ideally attractive adolescent girl and adolescent boy. In their descriptions of an ideally attractive adolescent girl, the boys noted intelligence, style, and popularity significantly less often than did girls. In their descriptions of an ideally attractive adolescent boy, the boys noted face, personality, and intelligence significantly less often than did girls. Study 2 included 174 seventh graders and 241 tenth graders. That study showed that physical attributes were significantly more likely than personality attributes to be the target of comparison for girls. When comparing themselves on style, personality, or popularity, however, girls were more likely to make social comparisons with peers than with celebrities or models. Boys were equally likely to make comparisons to peers or celebrities for personality attributes. In study one, the ideal girl was more likely to be described with a weight criterion, whereas the ideal boy was more likely to be described with a shape/build criterion. Jones’s study highlights the criteria for attractiveness and where adolescents find messages about their criteria. It also highlights some key gender differences in qualities worth making comparisons about.
The Present Study
There are two main underdeveloped areas in the current research on physical attractiveness and social comparisons: between-gender social comparisons and the dynamics of how men make social comparisons. I made these issues central in the present study and also incorporated mindfulness, personality, and social comparison orientation to understand the affective responses to social comparisons. This research was designed to investigate upward social comparisons and their effects on positive and negative affect. In the present study, I compared between-gender and within-gender upward social comparison affect fluctuations among heterosexual women and men. As upward social comparisons have been found to correlate negatively with post-comparison affect, it is important to understand the intersection of sexual attraction, the socialization of the beauty ideal, and Social Comparison Theory. Based on previous research, the following hypotheses were developed:
Hypothesis 1.Mindfulness scores on the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) would have a significant positive correlation with self-esteem scores on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE).;
Hypothesis 2. Participants in the within-gender condition would react significantly more negatively on the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) than participants in the between-gender condition on the negative and positive subscales; participants were expected to become more negative and less positive when seeing pictures of people of the same gender;
Hypothesis 3. Mindfulness scores on the Mindful Attentive Awareness Scale (MAAS) would have a significant negative correlation with negative affect scores on the PANAS;
Hypothesis 4. Self-esteem scores on the RSE would positively correlate with how “attainable” beauty was believed to be;
Hypothesis 5. Participants with higher social comparison orientation scores on any subscale (upward, downward, or general) of the Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Scale (INCOM) would have significantly higher negative and lower positive affect scores on the PANAS than those with lower social comparisons.
Method
Participants
Seventy students (fifty heterosexual women and 20 heterosexual men) at a small, liberal arts college participated in the present study for course credit. Data from participants who identified as bisexual or homosexual were not included in analyses. Twenty-seven women were randomly assigned to the within-gender condition and 23 were randomly assigned to the between-gender condition. Ten men were randomly assigned to the within-gender condition and 10 men were randomly assigned to the between-gender condition. Eighty percent of participants identified as White or European American, seven percent identified as Asian, four percent identified as Hispanic or Latina/o, and three percent identified as Black or African American. Sixty-four percent of participants identified their relationship status as single, 26 percent said they were in a monogamous relationship, nine percent said they were casually dating, and one percent said they were married. The average age of participants was 19.27 years.
Materials
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). The PANAS is a 20-item scale (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) used to measure affect fluctuation on two subscales: positive and negative. The scale can detect changes in affect after a priming task, between weeks, or over a period time. Participants rated their extent of experiencing a variety of state mood characteristics at the present moment (1=Very slightly or not at all to 5=Extremely). For example, participants were asked to rate adjectives such as “jittery,” “enthusiastic,” and “hostile.” The order of the adjectives was randomized in order to dispel any primacy or fatigue effects. Subscale scores can range from 10 to 50. Higher scores indicate higher positivity or higher negativity. The PANAS has good overall reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of .88 for the Positive Affect subscale and .85 for the Negative Affect subscale (Watson & Clark, 1994). The Cronbach’s alpha for the sample in the present study before the priming task was .91 for the Positive Affect subscale and .88 for the Negative Affect subscale. The Cronbach’s alpha after priming was .93 for the Positive Affect subscale and .85 for the Negative Affect subscale.
Priming task. The priming task asked participants to make either between-gender or within-gender upward social comparisons. There were four different conditions: Between-Gender Man to Woman, Within-Gender Man to Man, Within-Gender Woman to Woman, and Between-Gender Woman to Man. Participants were shown pictures of either three attractive women or three attractive men, one at a time. The pictures were chosen based on ratings from the Feminist Psychology Research Group, which is comprised of about 10 women from the campus community. Although race was a consideration in choosing the pictures, it was more important to replicate the cultural ideal in order to secure an upward social comparison. After each picture, the participants were asked to answer a variety of questions on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Not at All to 7 = Very) to assess the attractiveness and perceptions of the man or woman in the picture. For example, participants were asked to rate “this woman’s/man’s overall physical attractiveness,” “how likely a man/woman is to want to date her/him,” and “how assertive you believe she/he is.” Of note was the question that asked participants to rate “the attractiveness of her/his shape or build” based on a study on adolescent girls and boys assessing the criteria of ideal beauty (Jones, 2001). Although these items yielded interesting results, the intent was for participants to make upward social comparisons on the basis of physical attractiveness. To this end, each priming task was concluded by asking the participant “Who is the most physically attractive woman/man you know of?” and “What makes this woman/man attractive?” The participant was then required to make an upward social comparison even if looking at the pictures had failed to make her or him do so. The participant then completed the same Likert scale questions as they had for the first three pictures in order to assure that an upward comparison had been made and in order to assess the attractiveness and perceptions of the chosen woman or man.
Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS). The Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale is a 15-item scale (Brown & Ryan, 2003) used to measure trait mindfulness. Participants rated their frequency (1=Almost Always to 6=Almost Never) of behaviors or tendencies related to attention and mindfulness in daily life. For example, participants were asked questions such as “I tend to walk quickly to get where I’m going without paying attention to what I experience along the way” and “I find myself preoccupied with the future or the past.” Scores could range from 1 to 6; responses were averaged across the 15 items. Higher scores indicate a greater degree of trait mindfulness. The MAAS has good reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of .87 (Brown & Ryan, 2003). It had comparable reliability for the sample in the present study with a Cronbach’s alpha of .83.
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE). The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale is a 10-item scale (Rosenberg, 1965) that measures global levels of self-esteem. Participants rate their agreement (1=Strongly Agree to 5=Strongly Disagree) with a variety of items such as “I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others” and “I feel that I have a number of good qualities.” Scores can range from 0 to 30. Scores between 15 and 25 are considered normal. The RSE has good reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of .78 (Rosenberg, 1965). The RSE had good reliability for the present sample with a Cronbach’s alpha of .91.
Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Scale (INCOM). The INCOM scale is a 27-item scale (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999) used to measure the tendency to make upward or downward social comparisons. Participants rate their agreement (1=I disagree strongly to 5=I agree strongly) with a variety of statements regarding attention to others and comparisons made in daily life. For example, participants respond to items such as “I often compare how my loved ones (boy or girlfriend, family members, etc.) are doing with how others are doing” and “I often compare myself with others with respect to what I have accomplished in life.” Scores (i.e., a mean taken for each subscale) can range from 1 to 5. Higher scores on the General Social Comparisons subscale indicate a greater tendency to make social comparisons. A higher score on the Downward Comparisons subscale indicates a greater tendency to make downward social comparisons. A higher score on the Upward Comparisons subscale indicates a greater tendency to make upward social comparisons. The INCOM scale has good reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of .83 (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999). The scale had good reliability in the present sample with a Cronbach’s alpha of .83.
Perceptions of attractiveness and beauty (PAB). This is a 20-item measure designed for the present study. It asks about self-perceptions of attractiveness and general perceptions of beauty. The first 11 items mirror those of the priming task in which participants were asked to rate the woman or man in the picture on a variety of attractiveness and personality-related qualities. In these items, however, participants rate themselves. They are asked at the end of this section “what makes you attractive” in order to collect qualitative data on personal criteria for attractiveness. The second section of eight questions asks about beauty such as “To what extent do you believe beauty is attainable?” and “To what extent do you believe the definition of beauty is ‘in the eye of the beholder’/varies from person to person?” to which participants respond on a scale from 1 to 7 (1=Not at all to 7=Very Much).
Demographic questionnaire. Participants were asked questions regarding sex, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and relationship status.
Procedure
When participants followed the link provided in their e-mails, they were taken to the survey located on qualtrics.com. They were asked to read and agree to an informed consent before beginning the survey. Participants were administered all parts of the study online in one session through the web-based survey software system. Participants first completed two demographics questions (age and sex) in order to randomize the priming task accurately; if a participant responded that their sex was female, for example, they were randomly presented with either the Between-Gender Woman to Man or Within-Gender Woman to Woman condition. Participants were asked to complete the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), before and after the randomized priming task. They were then presented with the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE), and the Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Scale (INCOM scale). This order was chosen rather than randomized because the INCOM scale most closely related to the priming task and could cause participants to develop hypotheses about the purpose of the research too easily. The MAAS was least similar or associated with the priming task and was thus chosen to go directly after the PANAS to distract the participant and maintain the integrity of the study. Participants then completed the questionnaire designed for this study and the remainder of the demographics (race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and relationship status) items. They were then shown the debriefing form.
Results
Hypotheses Testing
A Pearson’s correlation was conducted to test the hypothesis that mindfulness scores on the MAAS would have a significant positive correlation with self-esteem scores on the RSE. Results supported this hypothesis; mindfulness positively correlated with self-esteem, r (68) = .45, p < .001.
A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to test the hypothesis that participants in the within-gender condition would react significantly more negatively on the PANAS than participants in the between-gender condition. The hypothesis was rejected. Within-gender groups did not significantly differ from between-gender groups on the positive subscale, t (66) = -.57, p = .57, or the negative subscale, t (66) = .66, p = .51. Means for each subscale were calculated by subtracting the pretest PANAS subscale score from the posttest subscale score. Negative scores on the positive subscale, therefore, indicate less positivity after the priming task. Negative scores on the negative subscale indicate less negativity after the priming task. Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 1.
A Pearson’s correlation was conducted in order to test the hypothesis that mindfulness scores on the MAAS would have a significant negative correlation with negative affect subscale scores on the PANAS. Results partially supported this hypothesis; MAAS scores negatively correlated with negative affect subscale scores from the posttest PANAS, r (67) = -.268, p = .028. There was no significant correlation between mindfulness and the negative affect subscale scores from the pretest PANAS, r (68) = -.213, p = .082
A Pearson’s correlation was conducted in order to test the hypothesis that self-esteem scores on the RSE would correlate positively with how ‘attainable’ beauty was believed to be. Results supported the hypothesis; the perceived attainability of beauty positively correlated with overall physical attractiveness scores, r (70) = .254, p = .034.
Pearson’s correlations were conducted in order to test the hypothesis that participants with higher social comparison orientation scores on any subscale (upward, downward, or general) of the INCOM would have significantly higher negative affect subscale scores and lower positive affect subscale scores on the posttest PANAS. Results rejected this hypothesis. There were no significant correlations between the positive affect subscale scores and the upward social comparison subscale, r (64) = .155, p = .221, the downward social comparison subscale, r (64) = -.075, p = .555, or the general social comparison subscale, r (65) = .009, p = .943. There were also no significant correlations between the negative affect subscale and the upward social comparison subscale, r (64) = -.101, p = .428, the downward social comparison subscale, r (64) = .019, p = .880, or the general social comparison subscale, r (65) = .041, p = .743.
Additional Findings
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to test differences in PANAS scores for each of the four experimental groups. Results indicated that there were significant differences on the PANAS positive subscale, F (3, 64) = 3.41, p = .023. A Tukey post-hoc test revealed that men in the within-gender group scored significantly less positively on the PANAS positive subscale than men in the between-gender group, p = .023. Means were calculated for each subscale by subtracting the pretest from the posttest PANAS subscale score. Means and standard deviations are shown in Table 2.
An independent samples t-test revealed that participants who noted self-confidence as a factor in their definitions of beauty had significantly lower self-esteem scores than participants who did not, t (69) = -2.5, p = .015. Means were calculated by averaging the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale scores, which can range from 1 to 4, where 1 is low self-esteem and 4 is high self-esteem. Means and standard deviations are reported in Table 3.
An independent samples t-test revealed that women (M = 3.86, SD = 1.34, N = 50 ) rated “how likely a man/woman is to want to date you” as significantly lower than men did (M = 4.7, SD = 1.22, N = 20), t (68) = -2.429, p = .018.
A chi-square analysis indicated that women were significantly more likely than men to note sociability as a factor of their own attractiveness, X2 (1, N = 74) = 4.34, p = .037. Percentages are presented in Table 4.
Discussion
Results from the present study supported several of my hypotheses. Hypothesis 1, that mindfulness would positively correlate with self-esteem, was supported. Hypothesis 3, that mindfulness would negatively correlate with negative affect, was partially supported. Mindfulness negatively correlated with one of the negative affect measures. Hypothesis 4, that self-esteem would positively correlate with the perceived ‘attainability’ of beauty, was supported.
Two hypotheses were rejected. Hypothesis 2, that participants in the within-gender conditions would report more negative affect after priming than participants in the between-gender conditions, was rejected. Hypothesis 5, that a higher social comparison orientation would correlate with a negative affective reaction, was rejected.
There were also some interesting, but unanticipated, additional findings. Men were significantly less positive after having rated other men than they were after having rated women. Participants who noted self-confidence in their definitions of beauty had significantly lower self-esteem. Women rated the likelihood of a man or woman wanting to date them as significantly lower than men did. Women also indicated sociability as a factor of their attractiveness significantly more often than men did.
Results were inconclusive with regard to the primary purpose of this study: investigating between-gender and within-gender upward social comparisons. The results did, however, indicate conclusions on mindfulness, affect, and perceptions of attractiveness and beauty.
Mindfulness
Results from the present study support prior research on mindfulness. Langer et al.’s (2010) findings support mindfulness as a buffer to the long and short-term effects of upward and downward social comparisons. In the present study, mindfulness positively correlated with self-esteem and negatively correlated with the posttest PANAS negative affect scores. This indicates that mindfulness may be able to impact self-esteem positively and to decrease negativity. These results suggest the usefulness of mindfulness therapy for those suffering from body image concerns.
Affective Responses
The present study yielded inconclusive results regarding affective responses to between-gender and within-gender upward social comparisons. A larger sample size or the use of implicit measures might have yielded significant differences that the PANAS was not sensitive enough to detect. Mean differences between the four experimental groups showed interesting trends, which suggests that more sensitive measures might show significance (see Table 2). On the positive affect subscale, for example, men who rated women showed the only increase. It is interesting that women who rated men had notable decreases in positive affect, greater than that of women who rated women.
Additional findings indicated a significant decrease in men’s positivity after having rated other men. Previous studies have not measured men’s reactions to rating other men on attractiveness. Homophobia may have contributed to this affective response. According to Kimmel (1997), homophobia is a recognizable aspect of masculine gender role conflict. Another contributor may have been the cultural standard that links the traditional feminine gender role with a focus on appearance (Lips, 2006). This may contribute to the expectation that it is appropriate for anyone to judge women based on appearance but that judging men based on appearance is acceptable only when it relates to potential romantic or sexual relations. Results support this as there were no significant differences in affect between women who completed the between or within-gender priming tasks.
Women who rated other women showed no significant negative affect response to the priming task. As mentioned in the literature review, this result may be due to limited sensitivity of explicit measures (Gurari et al., 2006). This result may also be attributable to a variety of mediating variables. The research on this topic has highlighted several factors that mediate affect response to upward social comparisons. Some research showed that body dissatisfaction, for example, predicted negative affect response; body-satisfied women were not affected by upward social comparisons while body-dissatisfied women were (Trampe, Stapel, & Siero, 2007). In other research, social comparison tendencies and appearance orientation mediated the affective response to social comparisons (Shomaker & Furman, 2007). Therefore, insignificant results from the present study may be because the women in the sample were primarily body-satisfied or there were other mediating factors that limited a negative affective response to the priming task.
Perceptions of Attractiveness and Beauty
The present study yielded interesting findings regarding perceptions of attractiveness and beauty. The extent to which beauty was perceived to be ‘attainable’ positively correlated with self-esteem. This finding supports previous research that indicates that having an internal locus of control and perceived agency benefits self-esteem (Guvenc & Aktas, 2006). Self-esteem also positively correlated with participants’ overall physical attractiveness ratings of themselves. Although causation cannot be determined, the two factors could have bolstered each other. Self-esteem may enhance self-perceptions of physical attractiveness and self-perceptions of physical attractiveness may enhance self-esteem. Self-esteem scores also related to some qualitative data taken from the perceptions of attractiveness and beauty questionnaire. Those who indicated self-confidence in their definitions of beauty had significantly lower self-esteem. People with lower self-esteem, therefore, are sensitive to their lack of confidence and may perceive it as a deficit in their own attractiveness.
The perceptions of beauty and attractiveness questionnaire also revealed interesting gender differences. Men rated ”how likely a man/woman is to want to date you” as significantly higher than women did. This finding supports previous research on gender roles. Women have been found to underestimate their skills and abilities whereas men often exaggerate theirs (Lips, 2006). This may also reflect the gender distribution at the college where participants were recruited; there are significantly fewer men than women at the college, which may contribute to this difference in “dateability”. Gender differences were also found in the qualitative analysis of what participants identified as factors of their attractiveness. Women were significantly more likely to indicate sociability as a factor than were men. This supports the feminine gender role expectation that women should be relationally oriented (Lips, 2006). Women, for example, are expected to maintain relations with other couples and family members once in heterosexual relationships.
The present study supports our understanding of masculinity and femininity as traditional gender roles relate to perceptions of attractiveness and beauty (Lips, 2006). It also yields support for research that indicates homophobia as a factor of masculine gender role conflict (Kimmel, 1997). The present study supports the understanding of how the overall concepts of attractiveness and beauty can affect self-perceptions and self-esteem (Jones, 2001; Montoya, 2008; Patrick et al.,2008 ; Bailey & Ricciardelli, 2010; Gurari et al., 2006). This study also supports previous research on the positive impact of mindfulness on these self-perceptions. The present study suggests ways in which therapy can enhance awareness about negative implicit attitudes regarding the body and body satisfaction. In reference to Social Comparison Theory, the present study supports previous research that has called attention to the potentially negative impacts of social comparisons. Digitally enhanced images limit the benefits of maintaining accurate self-concepts.
Limitations
There were several limitations to the present study. The small number of men in the sample limited the conclusions able to be made. The sample may not be representative of the population, and one participant could easily have skewed the means. On the ratings of men in the priming task, for example, one participant skewed the data significantly by designating a 1 to all items regarding attractiveness. This does bring attention, however, to the homophobia fears that may have fueled these results.
There were also potential limitations with use of the Negative Affect Scale of the PANAS. It used several adjectives, such as “afraid” and “scared” that go against the masculine gender role. Thus, this scale may not have yielded accurate reflection of negative affect fluctuation in men. Participants of both genders were also much more willing to indicate fluctuations in positivity than negativity. If another method of detecting mood change had been used, a change in negative affect might have been more easily detected.
In addition, implicit measures of attitude have been shown to gauge affective response more adequately than explicit self-report measures, such as the PANAS (Gurari et al., 2006). Implicit measures such as the Implicit Attitudes Test may be more suited to adequately identifying affect response to within-gender and between-gender upward social comparisons.
Practical and Theoretical Implications
Given the small size, it is not practical to generalize these results to all people within the tested age group. People who are older may also answer differently than the college-aged participants in this sample. The limitation in the men’s sample size, in particular, restricts the generalizability of significant gender differences to the entire population. Personal perceptions of beauty such as “how likely a woman/man is to want to date you,” may also have been affected by sociocultural expectations particular to the college campus that students were recruited from.
Despite limitations on generalizability of results from the present study, the results introduce interesting future research directions.
Future Directions
Based on results from the present study, future researchers should investigate between-gender and within-gender upward social comparisons using implicit measurements of affective response. This might eliminate the confounding impact of homophobia on affect response as well as the inadequacy of the negative affect scale of the PANAS to measure men’s mood responses.
In terms of samples, future researchers should test a larger sample of men as well as participants from a range of college campuses to account for confounds particular to the social environment surrounding heterosexual interactions at a particular college. Future researchers should also take into account sexual orientation and compare affect reaction among homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual populations.
Future researchers should also investigate the role of mindfulness specifically related to body image. The INCOM scale yielded no reliable results. The results of the present study in combination with previous research indicates, therefore, that other scales, such as the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire or the Contingent Self-Esteem scale as used in Patrick, et al,’s (2004) research on self-esteem contingency might be more informative.
References
- Bailey, S. D., & Ricciardelli, L. A. (2010). Social comparisons, appearance related comments, contingent self-esteem and their relationships with body dissatisfaction and eating disturbance among young women. Eating Behaviors,11, 107-112. doi:10.1016/j.eatbeh.2009.12.00
- Boyle, C. (2010). Operation beautiful [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://operationbeautiful.com/
- Brown, K. W. & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: The role of mindfulness in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822-848. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822
- Festinger, L. (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 114-140. doi: 10.1177/001872675400700202.
- Gaudoin, T. (2011, February 17). Body image is more than skin deep. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.
- Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 129-142. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.129
- Gurari, I., Hetts, J. J., & Strube, M. J. (2006). Beauty in the “I” of the beholder: Effects of idealized media portrayals on implicit self-image. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 273-282. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2803_6
- Guvenc, G. & Aktas, V. (2006). Age, gender, prejudice, interpersonal sensitivity and locus of control as predictors of self esteem, assertiveness and communication skills in adolescence. Turk Psikoloji Dergisi, 21(57), 45-62.
- Hellmich, N. (2010, September 13). What’s a girl to do about body image?; ‘Rock what you’ve got,’ says Katherine Schwarzenegger. USAToday. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.
- Jones, D. C. (2001). Social comparison and body image: Attractiveness comparisons to models and peers among adolescent girls and boys. Sex Roles, 45, 645-664. doi:0360-0025/01/1100-645/0
- Kimmel, M. (1997). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity. In M. Gergen & S. Davis (Eds.), Toward a new psychology of gender (pp. 223-242). New York: Routledge.
- Langer, E., Pirson, M., & Delizonna, L. (2010). The mindlessness of social comparisons. Psychology Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(2), 68-74. doi:10.1073/a0017318
- Lips, H.M. (2006). A new psychology of women: Gender, culture, and ethnicity. (3rd ed.) Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
- Montoya, R. M. (2008). "I'm hot, so I'd say you're not”: The influence of objective physical attractiveness on mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1315-1331. doi: 10.1177/0146167208320387
- National Organization for Women. (2010). NOW Foundation’s love your body day promotes message of self acceptance [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.now.org/press/10-10/10-20.html.
- Patrick, H., Neighbors, C., & Knee, C. R. (2004). Appearance-related social comparisons: The role of contingent self-esteem and self-perceptions of attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 501-514. doi: 10.1177/0146167203261891
- Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Shomaker, L. B. & Furman, W. (2007). Same-sex peers’ influence on young women’s body image: An experimental manipulation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 871-895. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2007.26.8.871
- Trampe, D., Stapel, D. A., & Siero, F. W. (2007) On models and vases: Body dissatisfaction and proneness to social comparison effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 106-118. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.106
- Watson, D., Clark, L., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
- Watt, N., & Clarke, S. (2011, April 5). Cindy Jackson sets world record with 52 plastic surgeries, cosmetic procedures. ABC Good Morning America. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/International/cindy-jackson-sets-world-record-52-plastic-surgery/story?id=13296809.