Effects of exposure to thin-ideal media images on body dissatisfaction: Testing the inclusion of a disclaimer versus warning label

The effect of digital alteration disclaimer labels on social comparison and body image: Instructions and individual differences

“…That is, when participants were not made cognitively busy assessing non-appearance qualities of the advertisements, they would retain the cognitive resources necessary to mentally undo (inappropriate) comparisons with the unrealistic thin ideal images. However, for participants in the distractor instructional condition, it was expected that results would replicate those of the previous studies in which disclaimer labels have not proved effective in reducing body dissatisfaction (Ata et al, 2013;Bury et al, 2015;Tiggemann et al, 2013). This same pattern was expected for the social comparison instructional condition, with both appearance comparison and body dissatisfaction expected to be highest for participants in this condition.…”

“…Disclaimer labels were positioned in the corner that best suited the individual layout of the advertisement to ensure that the label was clearly visible. Labels were printed in size 12 Calibri font enclosed within a thin border, and were similar in size to those previously used by Ata et al (2013) and Tiggemann et al (2013). Previous research has demonstrated by manipulation check (Ata et al, 2013) and analysis of eye movements (Bury et al, 2014) that participants do notice disclaimer labels of this size affixed to fashion magazine advertisements.…”

“…However, studies which have investigated the use of disclaimer labels on fashion magazine advertisements have found no such benefit (Ata, Thompson, & Small, 2013;Bury, Tiggemann, & Slater, 2015;Tiggemann et al, 2013). In fact, one form of disclaimer label has been found to exacerbate negative effects for some women.…”

“…It has been suggested that women may only consider the relevance or appropriateness of such comparisons after they have already been made, and may then attempt to "undo" them if the situation, their cognitive engagement, and their level of motivation allow (Gilbert et al, 1995;Want, 2009). In all previous experimental investigations ( Ata et al, 2013;Bury et al, 2015;Tiggemann et al, 2013) participants were requested to rate the advertisements on non-appearance qualities such as creativity, layout, and effectiveness. Thus, it is possible that the cognitive load involved in making these ratings inadvertently left participants with insufficient capacity to consciously undo any inappropriate comparisons (Gilbert et al, 1995;Want, 2009).…”

“…The other two instructional conditions imposed some cognitive load. In the distractor instructional condition, participants were asked to rate non-appearance qualities of the advertisements (as per Ata et al (2013), Bury et al (2015), and Tiggemann et al (2013)). In the social comparison instructional condition, participants rated items that subtly encouraged comparison with the models in the advertisements.…”