Our bodies, ourselves revisited: male body image and psychological well-being.

Page/Link: Page URL: Page URL: HTML link: <a href="https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Our+bodies%2c+ourselves+revisited%3a+male+body+image+and+psychological...-a0159027487</a> HTML link: Citations: MLA style: "Our bodies, ourselves revisited: male body image and psychological well-being.." The Free Library . 2006 Men's Studies Press 30 Sep. 2020 "Our bodies, ourselves revisited: male body image and psychological well-being..". 2006 Men's Studies Press 30 Sep. 2020 https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Our+bodies%2c+ourselves+revisited%3a+male+body+image+and+psychological...-a0159027487

Chicago style: The Free Library. S.v. Our bodies, ourselves revisited: male body image and psychological well-being.." Retrieved Sep 30 2020 from The Free Library. S.v. Our bodies, ourselves revisited: male body image and psychological well-being.." Retrieved Sep 30 2020 from https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Our+bodies%2c+ourselves+revisited%3a+male+body+image+and+psychological...-a0159027487

APA style: Our bodies, ourselves revisited: male body image and psychological well-being.. (n.d.) >The Free Library. (2014). Retrieved Sep 30 2020 from Our bodies, ourselves revisited: male body image and psychological well-being.. (n.d.) >The Free Library. (2014). Retrieved Sep 30 2020 from https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Our+bodies%2c+ourselves+revisited%3a+male+body+image+and+psychological...-a0159027487

Table 1 Correlations, Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, and Coefficient Alphas for Self-Acceptance, Environmental Mastery, Appearance Evaluation, Body Area Satisfaction, Dominance, Pursuit of Status, Victimization and Bullying Variables 1a 1b 2a 2b 1a. Self-Acceptance -- 1b. Environmental Mastery .69 ** 2a. Appearance Evaluation .45 ** .22 * 2b. Body Area Satisfaction .31 ** .21 * .60 ** 3a. Dominance .20 * .14 .11 .33 ** 3b. Pursuit of Status .08 .14 .08 .19 4a. Victimization -.12 -.13 -.33 ** -.12 4b. Bullying .11 .00 .00 .08 M 62.43 59.25 24.96 28.30 SD 10.93 9.32 5.45 4.84 Range 55 45 28 27 [alpha] .89 .84 .89 .77 Variables 3a 3b 4a 4b 1a. Self-Acceptance 1b. Environmental Mastery 2a. Appearance Evaluation 2b. Body Area Satisfaction 3a. Dominance 3b. Pursuit of Status .14 4a. Victimization .06 .25 * 4b. Bullying .22 * .23 * .46 ** -- M 6.28 12.10 3.41 7.52 SD 1.71 2.6 3.11 6.01 Range 9 11 12 32 [alpha] .67 .82 .83 .88 Note: Self-Acceptance = Self-Acceptance subscale of the Psychological Well-Being scales (PWB); Environmental Mastery = PWB Environmental Mastery subscale; Appearance Evaluation = Appearance Evaluation subscale of the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ); Body Area Satisfaction = MBSRQ Body Area Satisfaction subscale; Dominance = Dominance subscale of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI); Pursuit of Status = CMNI Pursuit of Status subscale; Victimization = Victimization subscale of the Bullying, Fighting, Victimization scale (BFV); Bullying = BFV Bullying subscale * p < .05. ** p < .01.

Given increasing objectification of the male body and rising steroid and supplement use among young men, it is imperative to explore associations between body image, masculine norms, and psychological well-being. This study examines correlations between these constructs in 101 male college students. Results revealed significant associations between participants' physical self-evaluations and two aspects of psychological well-being. Appearance evaluation accounted for approximately 20 percent of variance in participants' psychological self-acceptance. Body image correlated positively with perceived environmental mastery and with the masculine norm of dominance. A negative correlation was observed between childhood victimization and body image. Participants who considered themselves overweight reported lower self-acceptance than participants who considered themselves to be underweight. Results support the hypothesis that body image has become a significant predictor of psychological well-being in young men.Keywords: male body, body image, masculine norms, psychological well-being, weight**********There is substantial literature on the relations of negative body image to self-concept, eating disorders, and psychological distress in females, and on addressing body image issues in counseling (e.g., Fallon, Katzman, & Wooley, 1994; Johnson, Roberts, & Worrel, 1999; Srebnik & Salzberg, 1994; Stice & Shaw, 1994; Thompson, Heinberg, Altabe, & Tantleff-Dunn, 1999). The wealth of theory and studies in this field are due, in part, to a strong feminist critique of the impact of female objectification and to the dramatic rise in eating disorder diagnoses among young women. In comparison, male body image has received much less attention as a factor that might contribute in important ways to male self-concept and behavior (Pope, Phillips, & Olivardia, 2000).In recent years, however, more young men seem to be conflicted about their physical appearance. The prevalence of diagnosed male eating disorders appears to be on the rise (Braun, Sunday, Huang, & Halmi, 1999). Steroid and supplement use for the purpose of improving appearance or strength has increased dramatically, and their use appears to be associated with weight preoccupation, body dissatisfaction, poorer health-related attitudes, and higher levels of consumption of men's fitness magazines (Field et al., 2005; Irving, Wall, Neumark-Sztainer, & Story, 2002; Smolak, Murnen, & Thompson, 2005). McCreary and Sasse (2000) note the change toward a more muscular body ideal in general, and several studies document the increasing muscularity of male action figures, Playgirl centerfolds, and male advertising models, whose half-dressed representation in the media has risen sharply since the 1950s (Leit, Pope, & Gray, 2001; Pope, Olivardia, Borowiecki, & Cohane, 2001; Pope, Olivardia, Gruber, & Borowieki, 1999).Much as the predominant images of a singular, objectified, and unattainable female body ideal contribute to psychological distress in women, gender theorists hypothesize that the idealized lean and muscular male body that dominates the covers of men's magazines tends to contribute to low self-esteem and psychological conflict in men. In fact, there is growing evidence for an association between negative body image and psychological distress, physical distress, and aggression in males (e.g., Agliata & Tantleff-Dunn, 2004; Cafri et al., 2005; Furnham & Calnan, 1998; O'Dea & Abraham, 2002; Olivardia, Pope, Borowiecki, & Cohane, 2004; Ricciardelli & McCabe, 2004). Also, recent work suggests that higher endorsement of traditional masculine norms is related to higher levels of body dissatisfaction (Kimmel & Mahalik, 2004). In general, there seems to be increasing empirical support for the relation between body dissatisfaction and psychological conflict in young men.While the increasing fetishization of the male body appears to have initiated men into a struggle with body image similar to what women have long experienced, there are, of course, differences associated with the different constructions of gender. One significant difference appears to exist in the means of striving for a more beautiful image. In general, women tend to want to lose weight in the pursuit of an ideal slimness (e.g., Cash, 1993; Theron, Nel, & Lubbe, 1991). On the other hand, researchers of masculinity hypothesize that male body dissatisfaction falls into two distinct categories: The desire to slim down and/or bulk up, depending upon one's perceived relation to the lean, muscular ideal (Konstanski, Fisher, & Gullone, 2004; Olivardia et al., 2004; Ricciardelli & McCabe, 2003; Shelton & Liljequist, 2002). This muscular ideal seems to represent, at least in theory, an image of masculinity that invokes power, control, strength, independence, and dominance as defining characteristics of manhood. The increasing exposure to this image seems likely to exacerbate distress in men when they perceive their bodies as comparing unfavorably to the ideal.Young men who are victims of bullying may be particularly prone to negative body image, since a non-muscular appearance may often be a factor in why they are picked on by bullies. Research with male adolescents suggests that bullying--a show of toughness and aggressiveness--is a means of attaining status for males (Eder, 1995). Shelton and Liljequist (2002) found evidence for a negative association between body image and both victimization and bullying. The authors hypothesize that bullies compensate for feelings of inadequacy by picking on non-muscular males. The act of bullying, however, may serve to underline feelings of inadequacy vis-a-vis other males precisely because bullies tend to focus on those who are perceived to be easy targets. In turn, victims of bullying may internalize a sense of physical and psychological inadequacy associated with the experience of being victimized, and this victimization may be directly linked to a non-muscular physical appearance. In theory, both victims and bullies may feel unable to live up to masculine ideals of toughness and dominance, and this inadequacy may be associated with body image dissatisfaction.The present study was designed to explore associations between men's perceptions of their bodies (body image), aspects of psychological well-being, certain masculine norms, and a history of bullying or victimization. We present five hypotheses: (1) body image will be positively associated with psychological self-acceptance; (2) body image will also be positively associated with environmental mastery; (3) in accord with the idea that many males strive both to slim down and bulk up, men reporting satisfaction with their actual weight will report greater self-acceptance than men who report discrepancies between their actual and ideal weights; (4) body image will correlate significantly with endorsement of the traditional masculine norms of dominance and pursuit of status; and (5) body image will be negatively associated with significant childhood experiences of victimization or bullying.MethodParticipants and ProceduresOne hundred and one male college students in psychology courses at a private university in the northeastern USA voluntarily participated in this study. Participants' mean age was 19.45 years (SD = 1.94), with the vast majority of students identifying as "white" (89%). Four percent identified as African American, and the rest as Asian American, Latino, or international. Participants were asked to report their actual and ideal weights. Nine participants opted not to report in one or both of the weight categories. Participants were sorted into three groups (perceived underweight, perceived overweight and satisfactory weight) based on a differential cutoff of 5 percent between actual and ideal weights. Forty percent of the participants fell into the satisfactory weight category, with 37 percent reporting they perceived themselves to be underweight, and 23 percent reporting they perceived themselves overweight.MeasuresBody image. Body image was measured using the Appearance Evaluation and Body Area Satisfaction subscales of the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire (Cash & Pruzinsky, 1990), which was normed for both men and women. The seven-item Appearance Evaluation (AE) subscale measures feelings of attractiveness, unattractiveness, and general satisfaction with one's looks (e.g., "I like my looks just the way they are," and "I dislike my physique"). The nine-item Body Area Satisfaction (BAS) subscale asks participants to report their level of satisfaction with eight specific physical characteristics (e.g., "face" and "muscle tone") and with their overall appearance. Both subscales employ a five-point Likert format (AE: 1 = definitely disagree, 5 = definitely agree; BAS: 1 = very dissatisfied, 5 = very satisfied), with higher scores indicating greater body image satisfaction. The authors report good internal consistency ([alpha] = .88 and .77 for AE and BAS, respectively) and good one-month, test-retest stability (r = .81 and .86, respectively). Cross-validated principal components factor analysis supported the validity of the MBSRQ (Brown, Cash, & Mikulka, 1990). In the present study, the Appearance Evaluation and Body Area Satisfaction subscales displayed good internal consistency ([alpha] = .89 and .77, respectively).Psychological well-being. Aspects of psychological well-being were measured using two subscales of the Psychological Well-Being Scales (PWB; Ryff, 1989). The PWB is designed to assess individuals' positive self-concept and acceptance of self. The PWB employs a six-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). The Self-Acceptance subscale measures individuals' positive self-image and life satisfaction both in isolation and in comparison to others (e.g., "For the most part, I am proud of who I am and the life I lead"). It is important to note that self-acceptance is defined as a general psychological construct and that none of the items mention physical appearance. The Environmental Mastery subscale is designed to assess one's sense of competence in managing the environment (e.g., "I have difficulty arranging my life in a way that is satisfying to me"). Higher scores on these subscales indicate greater psychological well-being. Ryff reports good internal consistency for both the Self-Acceptance ([alpha] = .91) and Environmental Mastery subscales ([alpha] = .86). In the present study, internal consistency was also good ([alpha] = .89 and .84, respectively).Masculine norms. Endorsement of traditional masculine norms was assessed using two subscales of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI; Mahalik et al., 2003). The CMNI consists of subscales derived via factor analysis and designed to tap 11 aspects of traditional masculine norms. For this study we employed the Dominance and Pursuit of Status subscales, since they seemed linked theoretically with the ideal of a muscular body. The CMNI employs a four-point Likert-type scale (0 = strongly disagree, 3 = strongly agree) with higher scores indicating greater endorsement of masculine norms. A sample from the four-item Dominance subscale is, "In general, I must get my way." Pursuit of Status is made up of six items, such as "It feels good to be important." All of the items in these subscales reflect psychological characteristics of dominance or pursuit of status and none mentions physical aspects. Mahalik et al, reported adequate internal consistency for the Dominance and Pursuit of Status subscales (a =.73 and .72, respectively). In the present study, internal consistency was also adequate ([alpha] = .67 and .82, respectively).Victimization and bullying. The nine-item item Bullying (e.g., "I upset other students for the fun of it") and the four-item Victimization (e.g., "Other students picked on me") subscales of the Bullying, Fighting, Victimization scale (BFV; Espelage & Holt, 2001) were employed to assess childhood bullying and victimization. Participants report how often these events occurred during the past 30 days with responses arranged in a five-point Likert format from "never" to "7 or more times." We modified the instructions by asking participants to "think back on your childhood" to a month in which these events most frequently occurred. The BFV scale was created after a comprehensive review of existing measures and submission of items to principal axis factor analysis. Espelage and Holt report coefficient alphas of .88 for Victimization and .87 for Bullying, with coefficient alphas of .83 and .88, respectively, being observed in the current study.ResultsMeans, standard deviations, ranges and correlations for all variables are reported in Table 1. Appearance Evaluation scores were significantly correlated with Self-Acceptance, r(99) = .45, p < .01, and with Environmental Mastery, r(99) = .22, p < .05. Body Area Satisfaction was also significantly correlated with Self-Acceptance, r(99) = .31, p < .01, and with Environmental Mastery, r(99) = .21, p < .05. These findings support Hypotheses 1 and 2 that there is an association between body image and aspects of psychological well-being.Hypotheses 1 and 2 were further explored via simultaneous regression using Appearance Evaluation and Body Area Satisfaction as predictors of Self-Acceptance. While the model was significant, F(2,98) = 12.89, p < .001, Appearance Evaluation (B = 5.81 ,p < .001) was the only significant predictor, explaining 20 percent ([R.sup.2] = .20) of the variance in scores on Self-Acceptance, suggesting that participants' appearance self-evaluation significantly contributes to their psychological sense of self-acceptance. When the same body image variables were used to predict Environmental Mastery, the resulting model did not reach significance, F(2,98) = 3.09, p = .05. However, when Self-Acceptance and Environmental Mastery were summed to create a single score, the resulting model, with Appearance Evaluation and Body Area Satisfaction as the predictors, was significant, F(2,98) = 8.61, p < .001, and accounted for approximately 15 percent of the variance ([R.sup.2] =. 15). Once again, Appearance Evaluation was the only significant predictor (B = 7.64, p < .01 ). The results suggest that appearance evaluation may also be associated with one's sense of environmental mastery.To test hypothesis 3, we conducted a one-way ANOVA on Self-Acceptance with weight class (perceived underweight, perceived overweight, and satisfactory weight) as the independent variable. The effect of weight class on Self-Acceptance was statistically significant, F(2, 89) = 5.24,p < .01, with the partial eta squared of .11 indicating moderate strength of the relation. Post hoc comparison of means using Tukey HSD reveal that the underweight group (M = 65.80) reported significantly higher levels of Self-Acceptance (+9.56, p < .01) than the overweight group (M = 56.24). There was no significant difference between the satisfactory weight group (M = 63.24) and the perceived overweight group (-7.01 ,p = .05) or the perceived underweight group (+2.56, N.S.). The results are therefore mixed for Hypothesis 3. They lend support to the idea that men who see themselves as overweight tend to endorse lower levels of psychological self-acceptance, but do not support the idea that men who are underweight also endorse lower self-acceptance.Note. Self-Acceptance = Self-Acceptance subscale of the Psychological Well-Being scales (PWB); Environmental Mastery = PWB Environmental Mastery subscale; Appearance Evaluation = Appearance Evaluation subscale of the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ); Body Area Satisfaction = MBSRQ Body Area Satisfaction subscale; Dominance = Dominance subscale of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI); Pursuit of Status = CMNI Pursuit of Status subscale; Victimization = Victimization subscale of the Bullying, Fighting, Victimization scale (BFV); Bullying = BFV Bullying subscale. *p < .05. **p < .01.To test Hypothesis 4, the correlates of body image and the two masculine norms were examined. Dominance was significantly correlated with Body Area Satisfaction [r(99) = .33, p < .01], but not with Appearance Evaluation [r(99) = .11, N.S.]. Dominance was also mildly correlated with Self-Acceptance, r(99) = .20,p < .05. Pursuit of Status was not significantly correlated with Body Area Satisfaction [r(99) = .19, N.S.], nor with Appearance Evaluation [r(99) = .08, N.S.]. Results for Hypothesis 5 were also mixed. Victimization was negatively correlated with Appearance Evaluation, r(99) = -.33,p < .01, lending support, but was not correlated with Body Area Satisfaction [r(99) = -.12, N.S.]. Participants did not endorse significant levels of childhood Bullying (item means < 1), so we could not test the hypothesized association.DiscussionThere is growing concern about the health consequences of negative body image for males. Males, like females, appear to be comparing their bodies to objectified, unattainable images that represent a masculine ideal and, to a significant degree, measuring their self-worth by their appearance. This study provides empirical support for the association of body image and well-being. The finding that appearance evaluation accounts for 20 percent of young men's psychological self-acceptance complements previous research indicating an association between negative body image and psychological distress and adds to an increasingly sophisticated body of evidence supporting the idea that body image concerns are not exclusively female. Indeed, our society appears to increase stress in individuals of both sexes by emphasizing restrictive, physical ideals as markers of masculine and feminine status.This study suggests that even men's sense of environmental mastery may be related to how they feel about their bodies. The fact that the masculine norm of dominance is associated with body area satisfaction and with self-acceptance also implies a connection between psychological and physical control, between social influence and the physical appearance of power. Further support for this hypothesis comes from the negative association between childhood victimization and body image, which replicates one aspect of the findings of Shelton and Liljequist (2002). This result seems to provide evidence for a cycle in which negative peer evaluations, based on a combination of perceived non-masculine appearance (non-muscular) and perceived non-masculine behavior ("weak" response to provocation) are internalized and contribute to body dissatisfaction, which in turn is likely to contribute to feelings of inadequacy and psychological distress. Somewhat surprisingly, there were no associations between pursuit of status and body image. However, it might be that pursuit of status is associated with the pursuit of better body image, but not with body image per se, since individuals who strive for status through more imposing bodies may evaluate their bodies negatively. We were unable to test the hypothesized negative association between bullying and negative body image because participants did not report significant bullying during childhood.As in previous studies, we expected to find that males with negative body image and lower levels of psychological well-being would fall into two groups: perceived underweight and perceived overweight. Instead we found only our perceived overweight group endorsing lower levels of self-acceptance. The perceived underweight group reported the highest levels of self-acceptance, though they were not statistically different from those who were satisfied with their weight. One possible explanation for this finding is that the bulk of research on body image and psychological distress has been done on adolescents rather than college students. It may be that as thin young men reach greater maturity, they discover that their body weight is not a social hindrance, while males who perceive themselves to be overweight continue to experience adverse social reactions. It is also possible that socioeconomic status is a factor, since high school classes are likely to include many more males who will become blue collar workers and who may value muscular bodies more than professionals. If so, this would suggest a greater level of environmental pressure in favor of muscularity in high school students. Further research into how body image plays out in different social classes, ethnicities and environments, as well as studies involving other aspects of well-being, would help us to better understand the impact of body image on male self-concept.The tendency to measure male body image in terms of "lean muscularity" and its apparent relation with issues of self-acceptance, psychological distress, supplement use, and eating disorders could be interpreted as lending further support to the notion that an objectified representation of a restrictive brand of masculinity is being sold to young men in much the same way that an objectified and restrictive femininity is marketed to young women, and with similar harmful consequences. In the case of men, this representation appears to be tied to stereotyped norms of toughness, dominance, virility, and control, all of which may be signified by a lean waistline and rippling muscles. The ideal body becomes a status goal, like sexual conquests, a representation of manliness that ignores the variety of body types, the potential richness of male experience and the nuances of a complex, well-developed identity. It is the body of one who is too much of man to be questioned, one who cannot be bullied in any way and who has no need to pick on others: the self-reliant, self-made model of invulnerable manhood. As this idealized physical image of masculinity becomes more ubiquitous, it seems likely that young men who measure themselves against this ideal will have greater difficulty achieving self-acceptance and actually experience less mastery over their environment as they struggle for an unrealistic (and often unhealthy) level of control. Further research into connections between body image, different facets of psychological well-being, unhealthy behaviors, masculinity, peer influence and media influence will undoubtedly contribute to greater knowledge about how male identity and self-worth can be influenced by and interact with perceptions of physical appearance.There were several limitations to this study. The sample size, ethnic homogeneity, and participants' geographic region limit the findings' generalizability to other groups of men. Causality cannot be determined due to the correlative nature of the study. Nonetheless, the present study adds empirical support to the growing body of evidence positing a connection between men's body image and their psychological well-being, and provides direction for both practice and further research.It seems likely that we need to begin assessing young men's eating and exercise habits, supplement use, body image, and self-concept when they come in for mental health services in much the same way that we assess for eating disorders, body image, and self-concept in female clients. Preventive measures such as psycho-educational interventions that unmask the airbrushed, idealized images of magazines and focus on healthier means of defining self-acceptance, as well as on more nuanced explorations of masculinity, may well be warranted. While further studies are certainly needed to refine our understanding of male body image, its relation to media images and its effects on individuals, it seems the time has come for us to incorporate these issues into our conceptualizations of masculine identity, psychological distress, and psychological well-being.ReferencesAgliata, D., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (2004). The impact of media exposure on males' body image. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 23, 7-22.Braun, D. L., Sunday, S. R., Huang, A., & Halmi, K. A. (1999). More males seek treatment for eating disorders. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 25, 415-424.Brown, T. A., Cash, T. F., & Mikulka, P. J. (1990). Attitudinal body image assessment: Factor analysis of the Body-Self Relations Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 135-144.Cafri, G., Thompson, J. K., Ricciardelli, L., McCabe, M., Smolak, L., & Yesalis, C. (2005). Pursuit of the muscular ideal: Physical and psychological consequences and putative risk factors. Clinical Psychology Review, 25,215-239.Cash, T. F. (1990). The Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire, unpublished test manual. Norfolk, VA: Old Dominion University. Cash, T. F., & Pruzinsky, T. (1990). Body images: Development, deviance, and change. New York: Guilford.Eder, D. (1995). School talk: Gender and adolescent culture. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Espelage, D., & Holt, M. K. (2001). Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer influences and psychosocial correlates. In R. Geffner, M. Loring, & C. Young (Eds.), Bullying behavior: Current issues, research, and interventions (pp. 123-142). Binghamton: Haworth.Fallon, P., Katzman, M. A., & Wooley, S. C. (1994). Feminist perspectives on eating disorders. New York: Guilford.Field, A., Austin, S. B., Camargo, C. A., Taylor, C. B., Striegel-Moore, R. H., Loud, K. J., et al. (2005). Exposure to the mass media, body shape concerns, and use of supplements to improve weight and shape among male and female adolescents. Pediatrics, 116, 214-220.Furnham, A., & Calnan, A. (1998). Eating disturbance, self-esteem, reasons for exercising and body weight dissatisfaction in adolescent males. European Eating Disorders Review, 6, 58-72.Irving, L., Wall, M., Neumark-Sztainer, D., & Story, M. (2002). Steroid use among adolescents: Findings from Project EAT. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30, 243252.Johnson, N. G., Roberts, M. C., & Worrell, J. (1999). Beyond appearance: A new look at adolescent girls. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Kimmel, S. B., & Mahalik, J. R. (2004). Measuring masculine body ideal distress: Development of a measure. International Journal of Men's Health, 3, 1-10.Konstanski, M., Fisher, A., & Gullone, E. (2004). Current conceptualization of body image dissatisfaction: Have we got it wrong? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1317-1325.Leit, R. A., Pope, H. G., & Gray, J. J. (2001). Cultural expectations of muscularity in men: The evolution of Playgirl centerfolds. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 29, 90-93.Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B., Ludlow, L., Diemer, M., Scott, R. P. J., Gottfreid, M., et al. (2003). Development of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4, 3-25.McCreary, D. R., & Sasse, D. K. (2000). An exploration of the drive for muscularity in adolescent boys and girls. Journal of American College Health, 48, 297-304.Olivardia, R., Pope, H. G., Borowiecki, J. J., & Cohane, G. H. (2004). Biceps and body image: The relationship between muscularity and self-esteem, depression, and eating disorder symptoms. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5, 112-120.Pope, H. G., Olivardia, R., Borowiecki, J., & Cohane, G. (2001). The growing commercial value of the male body: A longitudinal survey of advertising in women's magazines. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 70, 189-192.Pope, H. G., Olivardia, R., Gruber, A. J., & Borowiecki, J. (1999). Evolving ideals of male body image as seen through action toys. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 26, 65-72.Pope, H. G., Phillips, K. A., & Olivardia, R. (2000). The Adonis complex: The secret crisis of male body obsession. New York: The Free Press.Ricciardelli, L., & McCabe, M. (2003). Sociocultural and individual influences on muscle gain and weight loss strategies among adolescent boys and girls. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 209-224.Ricciardelli, L., & McCabe, M. (2004). A biopsychosocial model of disordered eating and the pursuit of muscularity in adolescent boys. Psychologicial Bulletin, 130, 179-205.Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Exploration on the meaning of sychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081.Shelton, S., & Liljequist, L. (2002). Characteristics and behaviors associated with body image in male domestic violence offenders. Eating Behaviors, 3, 217-227.Smolak, L., Murnen, S., & Thompson, J. K. (2005). Sociocultural influences and muscle building in adolescent boys. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6, 227-239.Srebnik, D. S., & Salzberg, E. A. (1994). Feminist cognitive-behavioral therapy for negative body image. Women and Therapy, 15, 117-134.Stice, E., & Shaw, H. (1994). Adverse effects of the media portrayed thin-ideal on women and linkages to bulimic symptomatology. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 13, 288-308.Theron, W. H., Nel, E., & Lubbe, A. J. (1991). Relationship between body and self-consciousness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 14,979-983.Thompson, J. K., Heinberg, L., Altabe, M., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (1999). Exacting beauty: Theory, assessment, and treatment of body image disturbance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.DAVID TAGERGLENN E. GOODUniversity of Missouri, ColumbiaJULIE BAUER MORRISONGlendale Community CollegeCorrespondence concerning this article should be addressed to David Tager, Department of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology, 16 Hill Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211-2130. Electronic mail: dst79c@mizzou.eduDavid Tager, Department of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology, University of Missouri, Columbia; Glenn E. Good, Department of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology, University of Missouri, Columbia; Julie Bauer Morrison, Department of Psychology, Glendale Community College.