2002
DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3999(02)00489-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Predictors of vulnerability to reduced body image satisfaction and psychological wellbeing in response to exposure to idealized female media images in adolescent girls

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
101
0
12

Year Published

2004
2004
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 186 publications
(120 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
7
101
0
12
Order By: Relevance
“…Adverse effects are, however, not universal. Stability, or even improvement in body satisfaction following thin-ideal media exposure, has been observed (Durkin and Paxton 2002;Knobloch-Westerwick and Crane 2012). Authors have argued that effects are weak (Holmstrom 2004) or apparent only for those with existing vulnerability (Ferguson 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Adverse effects are, however, not universal. Stability, or even improvement in body satisfaction following thin-ideal media exposure, has been observed (Durkin and Paxton 2002;Knobloch-Westerwick and Crane 2012). Authors have argued that effects are weak (Holmstrom 2004) or apparent only for those with existing vulnerability (Ferguson 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Previous research has found VAS to yield reliable and valid body satisfaction scores (Durkin and Paxton 2002;Heinberg and Thompson 1995). Following Richardson and Paxton (2010), four scales assessing satisfaction with body shape, with weight, with appearance and feelings of attractiveness were used.…”
Section: Dependent Variable State Body Satisfaction Was Assessed Witmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Effective Programs also tended to use these two measures and improvements were also found on Body Satisfaction Visual Analogue Scales (Durkin & Paxton, 2002) (Ricciardelli & McCabe, 2002) 1l Size discrepancy on the Contour Drawing Rating Scale (J. K. Thompson & Gray, 1995) 2. Self Esteem [SE] 2a Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) 2b General Scale of the Marsh Self -Description Questionnaire II (Marsh, 1992) 2c Self worth or Global Self Esteem Score from the Self Perception Profile for Adolescents (Messer & Harter, 1986) 2d Piers-Harris Children's Self Concept Scale (Piers, 1965) 2e Other subscales of the Self Perception profile for Adolescents (Messer & Harter, 1986) (Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961;Kovacs, 1992) 3b Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-Short version [DASS] (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) 3c State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Junior) (Speilberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970) 3d Anxiety subscale of the Personality Factors-16 Questionnaire [PF-16] (Cattel & Gibbons, 1968) 4.…”
Section: Outcome Measures Used In Evaluationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These numbers underline the large role appearance plays in women's lives, especially in the Western World. The overemphasis on appearance among women is in part caused by the media (Clay, Vignoles & Dittmar, 2005;Durkin & Paxton, 2002;Grabe, Ward & Hyde, 2008;Rodgers, Salés & Chabrol, 2010) but other factors such as social cues from friends and family are also involved (Grogan, 2008). The general idea among women is that "What is beautiful is good" (Grogan, 2008).…”
Section: The Importance Of Appearance Among Womenmentioning
confidence: 99%