(de)constructing body image

7/25/2019 (de)Constructing Body Image

1/13

http://hpq.sagepub.com

Journal of Health Psychology

DOI: 10.1177/13591053060588512006; 11; 79J Health Psychol

Kate Gleeson and Hannah Frith(De)constructing Body Image

http://hpq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/1/79The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Health PsychologyAdditional services and information for

http://hpq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://hpq.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://hpq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/11/1/79SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 24 articles hosted on theCitations

2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.by martita vilarinho on May 25, 2008http://hpq.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://hpq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://hpq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://hpq.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://hpq.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://hpq.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://hpq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/11/1/79http://hpq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/11/1/79http://hpq.sagepub.com/http://hpq.sagepub.com/http://hpq.sagepub.com/http://hpq.sagepub.com/http://hpq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/11/1/79http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://hpq.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://hpq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


2/13

79

(De)constructingBody Image

KATE GLEESON & HANNAH FRITHBristol Doctorate in Clinical Psychology, UK

Journal of Health PsychologyCopyright 2006 SAGE Publications

London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi,

www.sagepublications.com

Vol 11(1) 7990

DOI: 10.1177/1359105306058851

Abstract

The reification of body image leadsto unarticulated ideological andconceptual assumptions thatobscure the most dynamic andproductive features of theconstruct. These assumptions arethat body image: (1) exists; (2) isa socially mediated product of

perception; (3) is internal and ofthe individual; (4) can be treatedand measured as if real; and (5)individuals respond to body imagemeasures as if neutrally providinginformation about pre-existingimages held in their heads. Weargue that it is more useful toconsider body imaging as aprocess, an activity rather than aproduct.

Keywords

body

construct

critical image

measures

AC KNOWLE DGE M E NTS. We would like to acknowledge Anne

Woollett for her careful reading of this manuscript and her insightful

comments that made a considerable improvement to the final draft.

C O MP E TI N G I N T ER E ST S: None declared.

ADDRE S S . Correspondence should be directed to:

K AT E G L E ES O N, Bristol Doctorate in Clinical Psychology, Universityof Bristol, 29 Park Row, Bristol, BS1 5NB, UK.

[email: [email protected]]

http://hpq.sagepub.com/http://hpq.sagepub.com/http://hpq.sagepub.com/http://hpq.sagepub.com/


3/13

B O DY IM AG E H AS been a powerful centralconcept for health psychologists. In particular,possible links have been explored between bodydissatisfaction and unhealthy weight controlbehaviours such as disordered or restricted

eating (e.g. Connor, Johnson, & Grogan, 2002;Story, French, Resnick, & Blum, 1995) orsmoking (e.g. Jeffrey, Hennrikus, Lando,Murray, & Lui, 2000); the uptake,or not,of exer-cise and activity programmes (e.g. Furnham &Greaves, 1994; Grogan, 1999); drug use includ-ing the abuse of anabolic steroids and over-the-counter medicines such as diuretics (e.g. Blouin& Goldfield, 1995; Wright, Grogan, & Hunter,2000); depression and self-esteem (e.g. Holson,Kraft, & Roysamb, 2001; Tiggemann & Wilson-

Barrett, 1998); and distress and coping in rela-tion to bodily changes in pregnancy, chronicillness and surgery (e.g. Rumsey & Harcourt,2005).

Body image is usually described theoreticallyin terms of complexity and multi-dimensional-ity, and as a conscious and unconscious humanexperience informed by historical, cultural,social, individual and biological factors (e.g.Taleporas & McCabe, 2002). In research it istreated as a reified, relatively fixed schema,

which exerts influence upon peoples behaviour.This simplistic notion of body image is notcentral in the theory but it is the core assump-tion that underpins research that attempts toreveal the impact body image has upon health-related behaviour. This article sets out to elabo-rate the assumptions that we feel underpin theuse of body image, to explore their conse-quences and consider what might be achieved ifthese assumptions were made more explicit andfurther research questions opened up. This

article does not offer an exhaustive overview ofresearch in body image (for this we directreaders elsewhere, e.g. Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002).Rather our aim is to outline key features of thecorpus of body image literature to show theways in which these obscure the dynamic,agentic and productive features of the individ-uals engagement with the body.

Although this article focuses a great deal onmethodology because we look at what healthpsychologists do when they study body image, it

does not present a methodological critique. Thepurpose of the article is to show, by focusing onresearch, how five implicit assumptions under-

pin the way in which body image is conceptual-ized, and how these assumptions narrow thefocus of research. We argue that despite rhetoricabout the complex and multidimensional natureof body image, these assumptions create a

simplistic and fixed model of body image. Thismodel may be fit for the purposes and researchquestions typically addressed in health psychol-ogy, but it limits the usefulness of the bodyimage construct and prevents us addressingwider research questions.

Assumptions underpinningbody image research

Assumption 1: body image

existsBody image is a hypothetical construct, muchlike the term attitude, invented by psycholo-gists to explain patterns in behaviour andpsychological phenomena (similar criticism hasbeen made of attitude research, see Potter &Wetherell, 1987). Current thinking assumes thatalthough people may not have an accurateimage of their body, it is axiomatic that theyhave an image and use it in thinking about theirbodies and in guiding their embodied behav-

iour. Accordingly, a body image exists in themind of the individual even before they engageas research participants.

The term body image was originally definedby Paul Schilder in the 1920s as, the picture ofour own body which we form in our mind, thatis to say, the way in which the body appears toourselves (1950, p. 11). The concept has sincebeen expanded to include both perceptions andattitudes. Rudd and Lennon define body imageas:

the mental image we hold of our bodies. Theperceptual component refers to how we seeour size, shape, weight, features, movement,and performance, while the attitudinalcomponent refers to how we feel about theseattributes and how our feelings direct ourbehaviours. (2000, p. 153)

Health psychologists had good reason to suggestthat people carry within them a mental schemafor representing their beliefs, attitudes, feelings

and perceptions about their bodies. Such aschema might help to explain why people holddiscrepant views about their physical needs and

JOURNAL OF HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY 11(1)

80



4/13

their physical condition. For example, researchaddressing anorexia nervosa could potentiallyreconcile the apparently nonsensical findingthat extremely thin people are motivated tomaintain and exacerbate that thinness, if one

understood that such people held an erroneousbody image which did not accurately reflecttheir painfully thin form. As an explanatoryframework, body image follows a longtradition in psychology of using constructs, suchas attitude, to explain links between a range ofdiverse behaviours which might otherwiseappear to be unconnected.

Both body image researchers and the generalpublic now talk as if body image was a (poten-tially problematic) entity that individuals

possess and which might influence their behav-iours and mental (ill)health. Discussion of bodyimage in the mediaincluding coverage ofproblematic body image and eating disorders,moral panics about the use of skinny models toadvertise products and concern about girlsapparent susceptibility to such imagesdraw onassumptions that people have a body imageand that it may be dysfunctional. However,body image is a hypothetical construct, and assuch it is only one plausible explanation for

observable phenomena.

Assumption 2: body image is a(socially mediated) product of

perceptionThe schema-based model of body imagecommon in health psychology conceptualizesbody image as a product of perceptionasconstructed through a process in which weperceive our own bodies and other peoplesbodies, make comparisons and internalize these

comparisons and alter our body image in thelight of such comparisons. Initially, perceptualprocesses were conceived rather narrowly interms of the ways in which visual informationabout the body was processed. This interest inperceptions of the body, and specifically percep-tual distortion, was driven by the investigationof clinical disorders. For example, in the 1960s,Bruch (1962) suggested that anorexic womenshow a marked distortion in their perception oftheir body sizethey perceived themselves to

be fat even when they are painfully and danger-ously underweight. Following this, Slade andRussells (1973) widely cited and hugely influ-

ential studies of body perception using themoveable calliper technique provided themethodological template for much of theresearch that followed. This technique providedan apparently objective and reliable measure of

body distortion that enabled participants accu-rately to estimate their body dimensions. Usingthis method, participants adjust four projectedlight beams until the projected image matchestheir perception of the width of their own bodyat particular points (typically the cheeks, hips,waist and thighs). Any discrepancy between theobjective measurements and the participantsestimate of their own body shape is taken as anindicator of the individuals perceptual distor-tion of their own image. Slade and Russells

findings that individuals with Anorexia Nervosaoverestimated the size of their body spurned aflurry of related empirical research and theoriz-ing. However, the technique raises a number ofmethodological problems and provides mixedempirical findings. For example, size estimationand subjective dissatisfaction with body shapehave not been found to be highly correlated, andthe perceptual componentpreviouslyassumed to be a static and rather unmalleableaspect of body image has been found to be

affected by numerous contextual factors(Thompson & Gardner, 2002, p. 137). But, theassumption remains, however implicitly, thatindividuals would be able to see their bodiesaccurately if there were no cultural or psychicpressures to distort their vision. Although newtechnological advances which purport to sepa-rate the sensory (the responses of the visualsystem), from the non-sensory (the brainsinterpretation of the visual output), aspects ofperception have attracted renewed interest (see

Thompson & Gardner, 2002, for an overview),there has been a shift of interest away fromtheorizing perceptual distortion in favour ofexploring subjective dissatisfaction. Despite thisshift, the assumption that body image is aperceptual phenomenon permeates a range ofother current approaches (including silhouettecomparison studies which are discussed later).

The waning of interest in the visual percep-tion of the body marked a shift towards measur-ing subjective satisfaction with the appearance

of the body. Rather than focusing on thediscrepancy between the individuals actualandperceived body size/shape, researchers are

GLEESON & FRITH: (DE)CONSTRUCTING BODY IMAGE

81



5/13

exploring the discrepancy between individualsperceived and ideal body size/shape. Such a shiftacknowledges that ones perception and evalu-ation of ones own body takes place in a culturalcontext in which some bodies (e.g. thin, white,

symmetrical and unblemished) are more highlysocially valued than others. Many studiescontinue to adopt the same methodologicaltechniques but the focus is on body (dis)satis-faction rather than body image distortion, with,for example, people asked to indicate which ofa set of line-drawn silhouettes best representstheir current and ideal figure. The discrepancybetween the figures chosen is taken as ameasure of their level of body dissatisfaction.This method has consistently shown that most

women choose as ideal a thinner body thantheir own (Altabe & Thompson, 1993; Fallon &Rozin, 1985; Lamb, Jackson, Cassidy, & Priest,1993), and is as Grogan observes one of themost widely used quantitative measures ofdegree and direction of body dissatisfaction(1999, p. 26). Although described as a measureof body image attitudes rather than perception,this technique is implicitly about perception. Inrecognizing that ideal body image is sociallyshared rather than the unique and idiosyncratic

production of the individual, health psychologyrecognizes and incorporates cultural context.Despite this, body image is, like other schema,conceptualized as a self-adjusting pocket ofinformation, vulnerable to distortion by cultur-ally influenced perceptual practices, but ideallyand potentially a more or less accurate mentalrepresentation of the individuals body.

Assumption 3: body image isinternal and therefore of the

individualThe model of body image often employed byhealth psychologists is one that rests within theindividual, reinforcing the notion that bodyimage is an individual possession. Althoughrecent research in health psychology has madesome attempt to address the fact that the indi-vidual operates within a social context, typicallysocial and cultural phenomena are seen asforces operating upon the individual in order toalter their internal mental representation of the

body.For example, treating ideal body image as

socially shared rather than idiosyncratic has

encouraged examination of the role of culturalstandards of beauty in the individuals percep-tions of, and satisfaction with, their own body(often referred to as the socio-cultural theory).Particular attention is paid to the role of the

media in communicating and promoting thesecultural standards. Content analyses of the sizeand shape of men and women represented in themedia consistently show that representations ofwomen have become thinner (Silverstein,Purdue, Peterson, & Kelly, 1986) and represen-tations of men have become more muscular(Leit, Pope, & Grey, 2001). These media repre-sentations appear to give an explanation forincreasing rates of eating disorders, bodydysmorphia and body dissatisfaction to

researchers and lay people alike. Researcherseager to explore the effects of these mediaimages have often opted for experimentalresearch in which young people and, in particu-lar,young women are exposed to media imageryof thin models and the effects on their attitudes,beliefs and behaviour are studied and measured.Results of such studies often demonstrate thatwomen become more dissatisfied with theirappearance after viewing such images (e.g.Groesz, Levine, & Murnen, 2002; Hargreaves &

Tiggeman, 2002). Although the socio-culturaltheory of body image disturbance is the mostempirically validated of all body image theories(Thompson,Heinberg,Altabe, & Tantleff-Dunn,1999), the mechanisms by which media repre-sentations influence body image are not wellunderstood. One suggestion is that mediaimages provide a reference point for socialcomparison. Myers and Biocca suggest that thebody image is elastic, with womens percep-tions of their body changing after watching less

than 30 minutes of programming or advertising.They concluded that:

television images that are fixated on therepresentation of the ideal female bodyimmediately led the female subjects tothoughts about their own bodies. This in turnled to the measurable fluctuations and distur-bances in their body image. In their mindseye, their body shape had changed. (1992,p. 126)

Health psychologists recognize that body imageis subjective and open to change through socialinfluence (Grogan, 1999, pp. 23), and


82



6/13

informed, changed or altered through feedbackfrom friends, family and the media. At the sametime, body image is treated as an individualproperty best examined at the individual level,and media influence is conceptualized and

measured as if it is uni-directional. As such, themodel is one in which outside pressures actupon the individual to influence an internallyheld model.

Assumption 4: that although ahypothetical construct, bodyimage can be treated as real

and accurately measuredBody image is assumed to be a relatively fixedand enduring phenomenon whose parameters

require measurement. We consider here some ofthe ways in which methodological techniquesare guided by, and in turn reinforce, particulartheoretical conceptions of body image and in sodoing close other approaches to research.Health psychologists assume that participantsresponses to psychological measures makevisible an internally held mental image of theirown body. A number of conceptual andmethodological issues arise from this assump-tion, which we discuss below.

1. It is necessary to simplify body image tomake it operant and therefore approachableby standard psychological research tech-niques such as experimentation. Althoughmany definitions approach body image asmulti-faceted, it is largely examined experi-mentally as a uni-dimensional concept. Theadjustable light beam apparatus,for example,treats the body as very simply imaged byallowing participants to manipulate the

width of their body at only four points (waist,cheeks, hips and chest), and questionnairesmeasuring body dissatisfaction focus onlimited areas of the body. For example, theBody Image Ideals Questionnaire asksrespondents to rate physical characteristicson only eleven dimensions (Cash & Szyman-ski, 1995), although the MultidimensionsalBody Self-relations Questionnaire (Brown,Cash, & Mikulka, 1990) has a broader scope.Silhouette studies typically use a maximum

of nine figures or silhouettes to capture thewide range of body size (e.g. Stunkard,Sorenson, & Schulsinger, 1983; Thompson

and Altabe, 1991). This limited range offigures fails to capture differences in shape interms of varying muscle development and fatdistribution arising from genetic make-upand body use. Grogan (1999) demonstrates

that the silhouette measure is compromisedfor the exploration of mens body imagebecause it conflates muscularity and size andobscures the direction of dissatisfactionformen being too thin can be as problematic asbeing too fat (see also Frith & Gleeson,2004). The heterogeneity of body shape inrelation to the ways in which fat is distributedto create different shapes is also overlooked.The larger figures are dominated by hangingflesh, the lines of the shoulders becoming

softer as they are wrapped in fat but alsonarrower, as if the muscle necessary tosupport the larger body has disappeared.Recent innovations attempt to overcomethese problems by exploring different waysof presenting images. Pope and colleagues(2000) have developed a computerizedmeasure that allows for muscularity, as wellas overall size ratings, while Stanford andMcCabe (2002) use a computer program inwhich participants alter digital images of

themselves. Health psychologists assumethat body image could be accuratelymeasured if only the appropriate technologi-cal means for making this internal imagevisible were available. Individuals areassumed to be conjuring up an image of theirbody (or ideal body) in order to compare itto an illustration provided by the researcher.Attempts to devise measures of body imagework on the assumption that individuals areneutrally reporting facts about an internal

image of their body that they hold in theirheads.2. Not only is body image assumed to exist, but

differences in participants responses topsychological measures are assumed torepresent real differences in the ways theyperceive or evaluate their bodies.Researchers assume that they can use silhou-ette figures to make judgements about howmuch dissatisfaction one person or socialgroup has in relation to another. By focusing

on a single dimension of the figures (e.g. size)scales appear to be separated by equal inter-valsimages are treated as if there is a


83



7/13

meaningful dimension along which they arespaced. The scale is treated as if it were ameasure implying some degree of precision;a simple mapping of the symbolic languageof the scale onto some ontological referent.

It is unlikely that, for most people, one of thebodies on the scale will actually look liketheir own. Rather when choosing illus-trations participants communicate abouttheir understanding of what the gap betweenthe illustrated bodies represents. How doparticipants make sense of the task thatresearchers set them? In the nine outlinedrawings of body shape, for example, do theboundaries reflect the cultural ideas aboutbody shape? Where is the mid-point on that

scale? Does it imply an average? In thelanguage of scales where we go from mostdisagree to most agree do the two endsrepresent the extremes? In this case, theyrepresent the extremes from a specificcultural standpoint, not the extremes interms of viable living bodies. In a culturewhere you can never be too thin partici-pants may be describing their understandingof their place in the hierarchy of desired andvalued body features rather than an evalu-

ation of the actual proportion of their body.3. Differences between actual and ideal bodyshapes are treated as if they are inherentlymeaningful. That is, they are interpreted assignifying dissatisfaction, regardless ofwhether or not such discrepancies are actu-ally experienced as troubling. Tiggemann,Gardiner and Slater (2000) argue that thereis an empirical question around the meaningof the figure preference rating scalesfavoured by body image researchers. Typi-

cally, girls choose as their ideal figure onewhich is significantly smaller than theircurrent figure, and this discrepancy is takenas a measure of body dissatisfaction. Tigge-mann et al. (2000) argue that the meaning orvalidity of this measure of body dissatisfac-tion is rarely questioned because themeasure has been shown to have reasonablepsychometric properties. To examine thisthey conducted focus groups with adolescentgirls to explore the reasons they gave for

wanting to be thinner. Girls indicated a rangeof reasons for wanting to be thinner includ-ing ideas that if they were thinner they would

be more attractive, confident, receive moreattention and be better able to fit intoclothes. Girls also thought that they would behappier if they were thinner but theirresponses did not indicate that they were

currently dissatisfied with their size. There-fore the choice of smaller body shapes inresearch does not necessarily imply dissatis-faction with current size.

Assumption 5: when respondingto body image measures,

people are neutrally providinginformation about an imagethat is held in their headsImplicit in much research is that participants

responses are based on a neutral and objectiveexamination of the internal image they have oftheir own bodies (i.e. their body image), andcompare this to the images they are presentedwith. This overlooks the social and culturalcontext in which cultural imperatives to lookthin, be healthy and take responsibility for onesbody dominate. For example, when women saythat they would like to be thinner this mayreflect what seems to be a sensible or acceptableanswer to researchers questions given the

cultural imperative to be thin. Similarly, thecultural imperative to be wealthy means thatfew people would claim not to want to havemore money. This does not necessarily meanthat getting thinner is a major priority or thatparticipants are motivated to engage in prac-tices that will bring about thinness. It is unusualfor health psychologists, in the course ofpresenting research about body image, to stateclearly what they feel a healthy body shouldlook like. However, both cultural imperatives

and the assumptions of health psychologistshang heavy in the air when participants areasked to both describe their own and their idealbody image. Research on body image is domi-nated by a body ideal which, while implicit andnot recognized, is sufficiently close to widersocial norms, and sufficiently clear to researchparticipants, that they give accounts of bodyimage which they understand as counting asappropriate accounts in the data collectioncontext. It may be the case that people produce

body image discrepancies in response to thedemand characteristics of the research setting.For example,when using the silhouette drawings


84



8/13

are participants to assume that the mid-pointrepresents the average, and could the averagereally be considered to be ideal. Participantsmay not have a clear body ideal that they aspireto, they may simply be responding to social

norms about how you might answer such ques-tions. Consequently, researchers may be misper-ceiving the nature of the data elicitation task,and may certainly misunderstand what it is thattheir participants are doing while engaging intheir research. Health psychologists who use thenotion of body image are embedded withinthe same culture and presumably draw upon thesame representations of ideal bodies. They areas much the victim of unrealistic standards andideal body fascism as are their participants.

This raises questions about what it is they dowhen health psychologists ask participantsabout body image, and the extent to which it canbe assumed that participants can or do respondin neutral and objective terms in such researchsettings.

In sum, we argue that these five assumptionsunderpin the ways in which health psychologiststypically research issues around body image. Inthe rest of the article we illustrate some of theproblems which arise from this reified, schema-

driven, individualized notion of body image,andthe way in which this constrains the kinds ofquestions addressed by health psychologistsbefore outlining an alternative approach basedon body-imaging.

The problems with bodyimage

One way in which health psychology can avoidthe worst consequences of a reified, schema-

driven, individualized notion of body image, isto treat the assumptions that underpin such anapproach as a series of problems for us in re-thinking body image.

Problem 1: the body imageconstruct narrows the focus of

researchersHealth psychology has employed the notion ofbody image to examine a range of issues, especi-ally peoples troubled and troubling relation-

ships with their body. It is our argument thatresearch could also benefit from an opening upof space within which to explore the relatively

mundane and ordinary thinking about the bodyin all its complexity and diversity. A reificationof the body image construct, and the heuristicbenefits of a consensual model of body imagehas pragmatic value in so far as it allows us to

capture some of the issues surrounding appar-ently nonsensical health-related and dietarybehaviours. However, there are problems withconceptualizing body image as a mental repre-sentation that exists inside the individual, whichcan be accurately measured using perceptuallybased techniques. The assumption that bodyimage is an explanatory factor in behaviour andpsychological functioning guides our researchquestions and narrows our research focus. Whatfactors influence body image? How can we accu-

rately measure changes in body image? Howdoes body image relate to psychological func-tioning such as body dissatisfaction? How canwe influence and change body image? The focuson procedures for answering these questionsmeans that less interest is paid to the diversityof peoples experiences and understandings oftheir bodies, and how people use these under-standings in their everyday lives and in theirinteractions with others. It is possible toconsider broader questions about how people

make sense of their embodied experience and toraise questions about whether body image is theonly, or indeed the best, way to explain thepatterns of behaviour problematized by healthpsychology. We could broaden our focus, not toabandon the useful work on pathologicalresponses to embodied experience, such aseating disorders and dysmorphias, but to encom-pass these within the range of everyday routineexperiences with and understandings of thebody. We could apply this focus on the routine

to incorporate the diversity in body shape, sizeand function and within this include disabilityand difference.

Problem 2: the body imageconstruct downplays thecontextual nature of bodyimageUnderstanding body image as a pre-formedmental representation that remains relativelystatic across situations is also problematic

because it overlooks the inherently sociallyembedded nature of embodiment. While thereis a recognition of the importance of the social


85



9/13

and cultural in the development of a bodyimage, this negotiation and constructive activityis implicitly embedded in past eventsbodyimage is a product ofpastexperience and socialinteraction. One of the consequences of design-

ing research based on an assumption that bodyimage is the enduring property of an individualentails ignoring the interpersonal and collectivework which people do in making meaning oftheir own bodies and the bodies of others.Merleau-Ponty (1962) asserts that the body isnever isolated and singular, it is always alreadyengaged with the world, even when physicallyseparated from the company of others. Thedifferent aspects and parts of the body, and thevarious ongoing experiences of embodiment are

pulled together into something resembling arepresentation of the body image only inproportion to their value to the organismsprojects (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, p. 100). Thissuggests that the individualized location of bodyimage may limit health psychologys attempts toaddress the complexities of the socio-culturalorigins of body image. Weisss (1999) insightfuldevelopment of Merleau-Pontys work makesthe inevitability of the social body clear. Sheasserts that our identity projects derive their

significance not merely from an individualsintentions, but from the situation out of whichthey have emerged and in which they areexpressed (Weiss, 1999, p. 1). In researchexploring mens relationship to their bodies(Frith & Gleeson, 2004) we found that menexperience their bodies in context-specific ways.Different elements of the body such as height,musculature and adipose tissue become salientand are responded to in different ways depend-ing on the social,physical,cultural,temporal and

spatial contexts in which they are operating. Forexample, the same legs become a source ofpride, regret, fear, loathing or indifference indifferent physical or imagined contexts. Otherresearchers have found that the additionalweight that most women eschew in mostcontexts, becomes acceptable in the context ofpregnancy (Johnson, Burrows, & Williamson,2004). In taking body image out of thesecontexts in order to study and measure itsparameters, psychologists miss the complexity

and fluidity of the ways in which individualsperceive and evaluate their bodies.

Problem 3: the body imageconstruct de-emphasizes thediscursive production of bodyimageAssuming that body image exists means that

we forget to ask important questions about howthis construct comes into being, and how it isdeployed and given meaning in everydayhealth-related contexts. Ceasing to treat bodyimage as a real thing that can be measured andobjectively reported, enables us to observe itsdiscursive production, that is to examine howpeople actively use body image to achievecertain ends, justify particular actions andmanage particular identities. Research partici-pants are active and self-reflexive, and partici-

pate (or not) in health-related practices withinthe context of a scopic economy of body capitalin which some bodies are more highly valuedthan others (see Skeggs, 2001), and a context inwhich we are morally obliged to look afterourselves (Crossley, 2003; Guttman & Ressler,2001; Martin, 2001). This context is reflected inour own research practice in which the attemptsof participants to answer our questions can beunderstood in relation to how they are called toaccount for their actions, rather than as merely

reflecting the means by which they guide, moti-vate and reflect upon their experience. Address-ing the ideological and conceptual messagesthat are communicated to research participantsenables a more reflexive approach to researchand allows the examination of body image as aconceptual device constructed through negotia-tion between the researcher and researched aswell as between the different members of aculture. Being reflexive about researchprocesses opens up issues about the position of

researchers within this cultural and ethicalframework. The dialogical analysis of peoplesstrategic use of body image may help us tounderstand the ways in which the messagesprovided by health psychologists impact uponeveryday behaviour and understanding, and theways in which their effectiveness is mediated.

Problem 4: the body imageconstruct elides the social

nature of perception

By assuming that body image is a mentalrepresentation formed through uni-directionalperceptual processes health psychologists


86



10/13

overlook the inherently social and constructednature of perception. Individuals learn to recog-nize and perceive the world as well as to nameand speak about it. This perception involveslearning where to focus our attention, how to

gauge, judge and compare. In its neutrality, thelanguage of perceptual processes obscures fromview the cultural shifts and changes about whatkey aspects of the body it is considered mean-ingful to attend to and measure in terms of bodyshape. The components of the body that arerecognized, and regarded as measurable, havechanged over time: reflecting on the waist ratherthan the ankles or the fingers gives a sense of thecultural norms regarding the key features thatmight be incorporated into body image.

Although women report that they wish to lookslimmer than their current shape, their decisionsabout body size take into account a whole rangeof different features that vary with size. Womenmay be happy with larger hips if they also havebigger breasts, or a larger body may mean afuller face and less scrawny neck. While mostwomen take on the cultural imperative to thin-ness, some prioritize other aspects of appear-ance. While satisfaction may be an importantaspect of how we experience our bodies, it is a

fairly gross measure and does not provide muchinformation about how people use their bodyimage to construct strategies and behaviours.

Problem 5: the body imageconstruct distracts from thedialogic nature of body imageBy assuming that body image is an internal andindividual mental representation of the appear-ance of the body, there is less interest in thedialogic nature of individuals engagement with

the body and the social contexts in which thebody is understood. In contrast to muchresearch in communication studies, healthpsychologists tend to assume, for example, thatmedia influence on body image is uni-direc-tional and implicitly causal, with images of thinmodels in magazines being a cause of bodydissatisfaction in young girls. However, collec-tive opposition to distorted and narrow defi-nitions of female beauty in magazines is oftenvoiced in young womens talk. For example,

although the girls in Curries (1997, 1999) studyenjoyed the magazines they read and comparedthemselves to the models, they also criticized the

use of unrealistic and too perfect representa-tions of girls and women. Another importantchallenge comes from research that shows thatpeople are active readers/viewers of the media,use images for their own pleasures and to create

their own meanings (Hollows, 2000). They mayresist or simply not take up the more dominantmeanings offered by media images, such as, thenotion that thin is beautiful or good, or that tobe beautiful one need be white. For example,Duke (2002) found that although AfricanAmerican girls recognized the cultural codes of(white) femininity contained in the magazinesthey read, they rejected the messages as unrealand unrepresentative of their own experiences:African American girls felt White magazine

models who were very thin or made up were notattractive; that diet products were not essentialor even desirable for Black girls to look theirbest (Duke, 2002, p. 223). Duke is arguing thatthe influence of culture is complex with youngwomen actively engaged in identity projects andcontributing to the production of their ownand each others embodiment. People modifyand resist the messages and feedback theyreceive about their bodies, and negotiate theirpositions while simultaneously monitoring self

and monitoring the feedback from others. Adialogical model such as this could facilitate theattempts of health psychology to explain theways in which people resist, avoid and managethe messages that they are given about healthand healthy behaviour.

Problem 6: the body imageconstruct encourages

researchers to individualizebody concerns

While acknowledging the role of socio-culturalfactors in the development of body image, andincorporating social causes into individualpathology, health psychologists, nevertheless,tend to separate the individual from the social.The social is used to explain the individualsbehaviour but the processes whereby the indi-vidual engages and exchanges with the socialremain largely unexplored (e.g. Neumark-Sztainer,Wall,Story, & Perry, 2003). This neglectis based on an assumption that while the indi-

viduals interaction with the social may beimportant, it is so complex that it is unrealisticto expect the individual to be able to challenge


87



11/13

the dominance of body ideals in the media.However, the prospect of an individual tacklingtheir own erroneous body image, at least thera-peutically, appears a much more realistic option.As interventions focus on changing the erro-

neous individual, rather than the problematicsociety, or their relationship to a problematic setof cultural ideals, then the assumption that animage of the visual appearance of the body isnecessarily and inevitably internalized remainsunchallenged. Health psychologists avoid theimperative to tackle media representationswhich lead to a socially shared, but almostimpossible to achieve, image of the ideal body.People might all be suffering from more or lessthe same delusion but the way to deal with it is

individual by individual. Even though healthpsychologists use the media in all its forms forhealth promotion, the understanding of howindividuals consume the media, particularly inrelation to how they use it to inform health prac-tices, is in its infancy. There is valuable researchyet to be done into the processes wherebypeople identify with and incorporate healthmessages into their practice. Health psycholo-gists might learn from those in media studieswho engage in media literacy training to teach

young men and women how to subvert themedia messages (e.g. Bergsma, 2004; Wade,Davidson, & ODea, 2003).

Body imaginga way forwardfor health psychology

Rather than using the static notion of the bodyimage schema, we argue that it is more useful toconsider body imaging as a process, an activity,rather than a product. An example of the small

body of research in this area is Cashs (2002)research, which illustrates the value of under-standing body image in relation to a series ofstrategic activities with the physical self. Whilestill a social-cognition model, which refers toschema-driven processing of informationabout, and self-evaluations of, ones physicalappearance, Cash (2002, p. 42) suggests that weunderstand that processing in relation to a rangeof self-regulatory activities. Cashs research inci-dentally supports the notion that appearance is

continually created by the individual. We feelthis requires us to abandon body-image-as-schema in order to consider body-imaging as an

active process which the individual engages in tomodify, ameliorate and come to terms with theirbody in specific temporal and cultural locations.

An as yet limited, but growing number ofstudies that use reflexive, qualitative and experi-

ential paradigms are beginning to develop theconcept of body image in ways that are morecomplex and dynamic rather than reified, staticand schema driven. For example, Choi (2000)has explored the relationships between exercise,appearance, identity and femininity, attemptingto focus on the complex interplay between phys-ical activity in the production of the self ratherthan merely as a route to a healthy body. John-ston, Reilly and Kremer in a grounded theorylifespan study of womens experiences of

appearance concern and body control highlightthe value of a qualitative approach which avoidsdependence on simple and sovereign factorsdetermining an individuals levels of appearanceconcern or body control (2004, p. 397). Finally,Grogan, Evans, Wright and Hunter (2004)conducted interviews with female bodybuildersand described the balancing act theyperformed between muscularity and femininityin meeting the complex demands of those withinand outside of the body-building community.

Good research that addresses body imagemust capture the individuals active engagementwith the interplay between embodied experi-ence, identity and display. Rather than using thestatic notion of the body image schema, wesuggest that it is more useful to consider bodyimaging as a process, an activity rather than aproduct. Body imaging incorporates a series ofjudgements, perceptions, negotiations, contestsand reflections. Body imaging is one of the tasksthat individuals might engage in while partici-

pating in research, and also while reflexivelyworking on their own identity. The explanationsfor apparent discrepancies between behaviourand body shape and size will not be explainedwithout recourse to the complexity of themultiple negotiations that individuals engagein. A fresh starting point that embraces thecomplexity of reflexive experience will open upa new fruitful avenue for health psychologysexploration.


88



12/13

References

Altabe, M., & Thompson, J. K. (1993). Body image

changes during early adulthood. International

Journal of Eating Disorders, 13, 323328.

Bergsma, L. J. (2004). Empowerment education: The

link between media literacy and health promotion.American Behavioral Scientist, 48(2), 152164.

Blouin, A. G., & Goldfield, G. S. (1995). Body image

and steroid use in male body builders.International


Brown, T. A., Cash,T. F., & Mikulka, P. J. (1990). Atti-

tudinal body image assessment: Factor analysis of

the BodySelf Relations Questionnaire. Journal of

Personality Assessment,55, 135144.

Bruch, H. (1962). Perceptual and conceptual distur-

bances. Psychological Medicine,24, 187194.

Cash, T. F. (2002). Cognitive-behavioral perspectives

on body image. In T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.),Body image: A handbook of theory, research and

clinical practice (pp. 3846). London: The Guildford

Press.

Cash, T. F., & Pruzinsky, T. (2002). Body image: A

handbook of theory, research and clinical practice.

London: The Guildford Press.

Cash, T. F., & Szymanski, M. L. (1995). The develop-

ment and validation of the Body-image Ideals

Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment,

64, 466477.

Choi, P. Y. L. (2000). Femininity and the physically

active woman. London: Routledge.Connor,M., Johnson, C.,& Grogan, S. (2002). Gender,

sexuality, body image and eating behaviours.

Journal of Health Psychology, 9(4), 905915.

Crossley, M. L. (2003). Would you consider yourself a

healthy person?: Using focus groups to explore

health as a moral phenomenon. Journal of Health

Psychology, 8, 501514.

Currie, D. H. (1997). Decoding femininity: Advertise-

ments and their teenage readers. Gender and

Society, 11, 453477.

Currie, D. H. (1999). Girl talk: Adolescent magazines

and their readers. Toronto, Canada: University ofToronto Press.

Duke, L. (2002). Get real! Cultural relevance and

resistance to the mediated feminine ideal. Psychol-

ogy and Marketing, 19, 211233.

Fallon, A. E., & Rozin, P. (1985). Sex differences in

perception of desirable body shape. Journal of

Abnormal Psychology, 94, 102105.

Frith, H., & Gleeson, K. (2004). Clothing and embodi-

ment: Men managing body image and appearance.

Psychology of Men and Masculinity,5(1), 4048.

Furnham, A., & Greaves, N. (1994). Gender and locus

of control correlates of body image dissatisfaction.European Journal of Personality, 8, 183200.

Groesz, L. M., Levine, M. P., & Murnen, S. K. (2002).

The effect of experimental presentation of thin

media images on body satisfaction: A meta-analytic

review. International Journal of Eating Disorders,

31, 116.

Grogan, S. (1999). Body image: Understanding body

dissatisfaction in men, women and children. London:

Routledge.Grogan, S., Evans, R.,Wright, S., & Hunter, G. (2004).

Femininity and muscularity: Accounts of seven

women body builders. Journal of Gender Studies,

13(1), 4961.

Guttman, N., & Ressler, W. H. (2001). On being

responsible: Ethical issues in appeals to personal

responsibility in health campaigns. Journal of

Health Communication, 6, 117136.

Hargreaves, D., & Tiggemann, M. (2002). The effect of

television commercials on mood and body dissatis-

faction: The role of appearance-schema activation.

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21,287308.

Hollows, J. (2000). Feminism, femininity and popular

culture. Manchester: University of Manchester Press.

Holson, I., Kraft, P., & Roysamb, E. (2001). The

relationship between body image and depressed

mood in adolescence: A five-year longitudinal panel

study.Journal of Health Psychology, 6(6), 613627.

Jeffrey, R. W., Hennrikus, D. J., Lando, H. A., Murray,

D. M., & Lui, J. W. (2000). Reconciling conflicting

findings regarding postcessation weight concerns

and success in smoking cessation. Health Psychol-

ogy, 19, 242246.Johnson, S., Burrows, A., & Williamson, I. (2004).

Does my bump look big in this?: The meaning of

bodily changes for first-time mothers-to-be.Journal

of Health Psychology, 9(3), 361374.

Johnston, O., Reilly, J., & Kremer, J. (2004). Womens

experiences of appearance concern and body

control across the lifespan: Challenging the

accepted wisdom. Journal of Health Psychology,

9(3), 397410.

Lamb, C. S., Jackson, L. A., Cassidy, P. B., & Priest, D.

J. (1993). Body figure preferences of men and

women: A comparison of two generations. SexRoles,28, 345356.

Leit, R. A., Pope, H. G., & Grey, J. J. (2001). Cultural

expectations of muscularity in men: The evolution

of Playgirl centrefolds. International Journal of

Eating Disorders,22, 9093.

Martin, M. W. (2001). Responsibility for health and

blaming victims.Journal of Medical Humanities,22,

95114.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of percep-

tion. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Myers, P. N., & Biocca, F. A. (1992). The elastic body

image: The effect of television advertising andprogramming on body image distortions in young

women.Journal of Commnication, 42, 108133.


89



13/13

Neumark-Sztainer, D., Wall, M. M., Story, M., & Perry,

C. L. (2003). Correlates of unhealthy weight-control

behaviours among adolescents: Implications for

prevention programs. Health Psychology, 22(1),

8898.

Pope, H. G., Gruber, A. J., Mangweth, B., Bureau, B.,

deCol, C., Jouvent, R., & Hudson, J. I. (2000). Bodyimage perception among men in three countries.

American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 12971301.

Potter,J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social

psychology. London: Sage Publications.

Rudd, N. A., & Lennon, S. J. (2000). Body image and

appearance-management behaviours in college

women. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 18,

152162.

Rumsey, N., & Harcourt, D. (2005). The psychology of

appearance and disfigurement. Buckingham: Open

University Press.

Schilder, P. (1950). The image and appearance of thehuman body. New York: International Universities

Press.

Silverstein, B., Perdue, L., Peterson, B., & Kelly, E.

(1986). The role of the mass media in promoting a

thin standard of bodily attractiveness for women.

Sex Roles, 14, 519532.

Skeggs, B. (2001). The toilet paper: Femininity, class

and mis-recognition. Womens Studies International

Forum,24, 295307.

Slade, P. D., & Russell, G. F. M. (1973). Awareness of

body dimensions in anorexia nervosa: Cross-

sectional and longitudinal studies. PsychologicalMedicine,3, 188199.

Stanford, J. N., & McCabe, M. P. (2002). Body image

ideals among males and females: Sociocultural

influences and focus on different body parts.Journal

of Health Psychology, 7, 675684.

Story, M., French, S. A., Resnick, M. D., & Blum, R. W.

(1995). Ethnic/racial and socioeconomic differences

in dieting behaviours and body image perceptions

in adolescents. International Journal of Eating

Disorders, 18, 173179.

Stunkard, A. J., Sorenson, T. I., & Schulsinger, F.

(1983). Use of the Danish Adoption Register for the

study of obesity and thinness. In S. Kety, L. P.

Rowland, R. L. Sidman, & S. W. Matthysse (Eds.),

The genetics of neurological and psychiatric

disorders (pp. 115120). New York: Raven Press.

Taleporas, G., & McCabe, M. P. (2002). Body imageand physical disability: Personal perspectives. Social

Science & Medicine,54, 971980.

Thompson, J. K., & Altabe, M. N. (1991). Psychometric

qualities of the Figure Rating Scale. International


Thompson, J. K., & Gardner, R. M. (2002). Measuring

perceptual body image among adolescents and

adults. In T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body

image: A handbook of theory, research and clinical

practice (pp. 135141). London: The Guildford

Press.

Thompson, J. K., Heinberg, L. J., Altabe, M., &Tantleff-Dunn, S. (1999). Exacting beauty: Theory,

assessment, and treatment of body image distur-

bance. Washington: American Psychological Associ-

ation.

Tiggemann, M., Gardiner, M., & Slater, A. (2000). I

would rather be size 10 than have straight As: A

focus group study of adolescent girls wish to be

thinner. Journal of Adolescence,23, 645659.

Tiggemann, M., & Wilson-Barrett, E. (1998).

Childrens figure drawings: Relationship to self-

esteem and negative stereotyping. International

Journal of Eating Disorders,23, 8388.Wade, T. D., Davidson, S., & ODea, J. A. (2003). A

preliminary controlled evaluation of a school-based

media literacy program and self-esteem program for

reducing eating disorder risk factors. International

Journal of Eating Disorders,33(4), 371383.

Weiss, G. (1999). Body images: Embodiment as inter-

corporeality. New York: Routledge.

Wright, S., Grogan, S., & Hunter, G. (2000). Motiva-

tions for anabolic steroid use among bodybuilders.

Journal of Health Psychology,5(4), 566571.


90

Author biographies

K AT E G LE ES ON researches visuality andvisual appearance at the intersection of healthand social psychology. She is a member of theCentre for Appearance Research at theUniversity of the West of England and isemployed as Research Director for the BristolDoctorate in Clinical Psychology at Bristol

University.

H AN NA H F RI TH researches the constructionof visual selves and the interconnectionsbetween embodiment and clothing practices.She is a Research Tutor at the BristolDoctorate in Clinical Psychology at BristolUniversity.

by martita vilarinho on May 25 2008http://hpq sagepub comDownloaded from

(de)constructing body image

Documents