1 / 22

The UCLA Body Matrices II

The UCLA Body Matrices II. David Frederick Anne Peplau UCLA Department of Psychology Acknowledgements: Thanks to Jim Compton of SNSL Imagination for assistance creating the UCLA Body Matrices (SNSLimagination@aol.com)

mills
Download Presentation

The UCLA Body Matrices II

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The UCLA Body Matrices II David Frederick Anne Peplau UCLA Department of Psychology Acknowledgements: Thanks to Jim Compton of SNSL Imagination for assistance creating the UCLA Body Matrices (SNSLimagination@aol.com) Contact: David Frederick at enderflies1@aol.com. Available at the following website: dred.bol.ucla.edu

  2. Problems in Measuring Body Satisfaction • Women’s Bodies • Forms used to assess women’s body types confound body fat and breast size, or only manipulate one of these features. • Men’s Bodies • Similarly, forms for men appear to confound muscularity with body fat, or only manipulate one of these features. • Hand-Drawn Images • All existing forms utilize crude hand-drawn silhouettes of men and women.

  3. Examples of Popular Female Reference Forms

  4. Examples of Popular Male Reference Forms

  5. The UCLA Body Matrices • We introduce the UCLA Body Matrices as an improvement over existing forms. These new matrices provide more levels of body fat for women and muscularity for men • The UCLA Matrix of Men systematically varies: • 4 levels of body fat, from slender (10)* to heavy (40) • 7 levels of muscularity, from non-muscular (10) to very muscular (70) • The UCLA Matrix of Women systematically varies: • 4 levels of breast size, from small (10) to large (40) • 8 levels of body fat, from slender (10) to heavy (80) *The numbers correspond to equally spaced intervals according to the software used, not objective measurements (e.g., not 10% body fat).

  6. Pick a Number vs. Scaled Versions • Pick A Number Version: • Each one of the images is numbered • Participants are simply asked to indicate which image best represents their current body, the ideal body, the typical body, etc. • The advantage is this version is very simple for participants • Scaled Version • Participants indicate which image best represents their current body, etc., using a latitude-longitude system. • This is more complex for participants but allows them to indicate intermediate values (e.g., they can indicate that their breast size is between levels 30 and 40). • *Matrices can be viewed at: http://dfred.bol.ucla.edu/UCLAbody.html

  7. Present Research • 1. Do rating of one’s current body, ideal body, and the discrepancy between these ratings predict measures of: • Body Mass (BMI)? • Breast Cup Size • Overall body satisfaction (Appearance Evaluation Scale; (Cash, 2000)? • Drive for muscularity (McCreary & Sasse, 2000)? • Breast size satisfaction (Forbes & Frederick, under review) • 2. Do people perceive a difference between their current and their ideal body? • 3. Do people perceive a difference between the typical and most attractive body type of the other sex? • 4. Do the measures show high test-retest reliability?

  8. Study 1: Pick A Number Version • Participants were 102 men and 255 women in a psychology class who participated in exchange for extra credit. • Mean Age = 18.94 • 26% White, 41% Asian, 14% Hispanic, 19% Other.

  9. Validating the UCLA Body Matrices:Association to BMI and Breast Size • Linear Regressions predicting BMI • Men (Muscularity and Body fat to BMI): • Model R = .74 • Women (Breast Size and Body fat to BMI): • Model R = .71 • Linear Regressions predicting cup size • (Breast size and Body Fat self-reported cup size): • Model R = .76

  10. Association of Matrix Choices to Body Image * The discrepancies are absolute values. For example, Fat Discrepancy = [ABS (current – ideal body fat level.)]

  11. Men and Women’s Ratings of Female Body Fat Women’s Ratings of Body Fat: Women perceived that their current body did not differ from the typical body, but they were heavier than their ideal. Men’s Ratings of Body Fat: Men perceived that the most attractive body was thinner than the ideal body.

  12. Men and Women’s Ratings of Female Breast Size Women’s Ratings of Breast Size: Women did not perceive a difference between their current breast size and the ideal breast size, but did desire larger ideal breasts. Men’s Ratings of Breast Size: Men indicated that the typical breast size was smaller than the ideal breast size.

  13. Men and Women’s Ratings of Male Body Fat Men’s Ratings of Body Fat: Men perceived that they were slightly thinner than average, and slightly heavier than their ideal. Women’s Ratings of Body Fat: Women did not perceive a difference between the typical and ideal level of body fat.

  14. Men and Women’s Ratings of Male Muscularity Men’s Ratings of Muscularity: Men perceived that they were slightly more muscular than average, but were much less muscular than their ideal. Women’s Ratings of Muscularity: Women indicated that the most attractive male body was much more muscular than the typical male body.

  15. Study 2: Scaled Version • Participants were 112 men and 122 women at local campus hangouts who participated in exchange for being entered in a lottery. • Mean Age = 22.88 • 40% White, 25% Asian, 12% Hispanic, 23% Other.

  16. Validating the UCLA Body Matrices:Association to BMI and Breast Size • Linear Regressions predicting BMI • Men (Muscularity and Body fat to BMI): • Model R = .73 • Women (Breast Size and Body fat to BMI): • Model R = .67 • Linear Regressions predicting cup size • (Breast size and Body Fat self-reported cup size): • Model R = .76

  17. Association of Matrix Choices to Body Image * The discrepancies are absolute values. For example, Fat Discrepancy = [ABS (current – ideal body fat level.)]

  18. Men and Women’s Ratings of Female Body Fat Women’s Ratings of Body Fat: Women did not perceive a difference between their body and the typical body, but were heavier than their ideal body. Men’s Ratings of Body Fat: Men indicated that the most attractive body was thinner than the typical body.

  19. Men and Women’s Ratings of Female Breast Size Women’s Ratings of Breast Size: Women did not perceive a difference between their current body and the typical body, but desired larger breasts. Men’s Ratings of Breast Size: Men indicated that the most attractive breast size was larger than the typical breast size.

  20. Men and Women’s Ratings of Male Body Fat Men’s Ratings of Body Fat: Men believed they were slightly thinner than average, but slightly heavier than their ideal. Women’s Ratings of Body Fat: Women did not perceive a difference between the typical and most attractive body fat level.

  21. Men and Women’s Ratings of Male Muscularity Men’s Ratings of Muscularity: Men perceived that they were slightly more muscular than average, but much less muscular than their ideal body. Women’s Ratings of Muscularity: Women indicated that the most attractive body was more muscular than the typicial male body.

  22. Summary of Findings • The results suggest that the matrices are useful measures of body image and body type preferences. Responses were: • Strongly related to BMI and self-reported breast cup-size • Associated with global body satisfaction, and breast size/muscularity satisfaction • Congruent with past research on body type preferences

More Related