Consumer opinion on social policy approaches to promoting positive body image: Airbrushed media images and disclaimer labels

Abstract

Disclaimer UWE has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material. UWE makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited.UWE makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights. UWE accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. Appearance diversity in media and reorienting social norms from appearance to function and health were perceived as effective strategies. Social policy and research implications are discussed.

Disclaimer labels on fashion magazine advertisements: Does timing of digital alteration information matter?

“…One potential reason as to why disclaimer labels may not have been effective in reducing body dissatisfaction in the latter studies is that they may not have reduced social comparison, as reported by Bury et al (2015) and Tiggemann et al (2013). This negative finding is consistent with recent conceptualisations of social comparison that such comparisons can occur automatically, even when they are inappropriate (Bessenoff, 2006;Gilbert, Giesler, & Morris, 1995;Paraskeva et al, 2015;Want, 2009). Thus, it may be that the digital alteration message contained in a disclaimer label comes too late, after women have already spontaneously made their upward comparisons with the models.…”

“…Internationally, policy makers and governments have been searching for quick and easy-to-implement universal prevention strategies in an attempt to prevent women from feeling dissatisfied with their bodies following idealised media exposure (Krawitz, 2014;Paraskeva, Lewis-Smith, & Diedrichs, 2015;Paxton, 2015). A number of countries, including Israel, France, and Australia, have introduced population level preventative recommendations or legislation that suggest or require a disclaimer label be attached to any digitally altered media image (Charlton, 2015;Geuss, 2012;Krawitz, 2014;Paxton, 2015).…”

“…A number of countries, including Israel, France, and Australia, have introduced population level preventative recommendations or legislation that suggest or require a disclaimer label be attached to any digitally altered media image (Charlton, 2015;Geuss, 2012;Krawitz, 2014;Paxton, 2015). The rationale underlying this social policy is that a disclaimer label will highlight the appearance of a model as unrealistic and therefore inappropriate as a comparison target, thereby reducing social comparison and resultant body dissatisfaction (Paraskeva et al, 2015;Tiggemann, Slater, Bury, Hawkins, & Firth, 2013).…”

The digital surgeon's warning: Do disclaimers have a place in beauty and fashion advertising?

“…A possible explanation of this is that labeling an image as being digitally perfected then primes a viewer into thinking even more highly of that image, whether for visual, professional, or status reasons, and then evaluates her-or himself against an even more dissimilar perception of the model than is portrayed. A second explanation is that cultivation effects simply overpower a disclaimer's purpose (Bissell, 2006;Paraskeva, Lewis-Smith, & Diedrichs, 2015), or that disclaimers go unnoticed in beauty and fashion advertisements (Paraskeva, Lewis-Smith, & Diedrichs, 2015;Slater, Tiggemann, Firth, & Hawkins, 2012). When disclaimers are put in place with the intention of decreasing negative self-evaluations through social comparison, but then actually increase these evaluations, it is referred to as a 'boomerang effect' (Ata, Thompson, & Small, 2013).…”

“…While there are regulations on advertising and marketing regarding deceit, appeals to children, endorsements, the environment, health claims, 'made in the USA' disclosures, online advertising, and telemarketing (Federal Trade Commission), the United States is comparatively lax on limiting advertisers' free speech. In addition to this First Amendment infringement, there has also been doubt and skepticism surrounding the effectiveness of disclaimers to serve their purpose of shielding consumers from negative physical self-esteem effects (Bissell, 2006;Green & Armstrong, 2012;Harrison & Hefner, 2014;Paraskeva, Lewis-Smith, & Diedrichs, 2015).…”