Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research 4/2020

22-11-2018 | Original Article

Thinner than yourself: self-serving bias in body size estimation

Auteurs: Mara Mazzurega, Jlenia Marisa, Massimiliano Zampini, Francesco Pavani

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2020

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

The self-serving bias is the tendency to consider oneself in unrealistically positive terms. This phenomenon has been documented for body attractiveness, but it remains unclear to what extent it can also emerge for own body size perception. In the present study, we examined this issue in healthy young adults (45 females and 40 males), using two body size estimation (BSE) measures and taking into account inter-individual differences in eating disorder risk. Participants observed pictures of avatars, built from whole body photos of themselves or an unknown other matched for gender. Avatars were parametrically distorted along the thinness–heaviness dimension, and individualised by adding the head of the self or the other. In the first BSE task, participants indicated in each trial whether the seen avatar was thinner or fatter than themselves (or the other). In the second BSE task, participants chose the best representative body size for self and other from a set of avatars. Greater underestimation for self than other body size emerged in both tasks, comparably for women and men. Thinner bodies were also judged as more attractive, in line with standard of beauty in modern western society. Notably, this self-serving bias in BSE was stronger in people with low eating disorder risk. In sum, positive attitudes towards the self can extend to body size estimation in young adults, making own body size closer to the ideal body. We propose that this bias could play an adaptive role in preserving a positive body image.
Voetnoten
1
In the psychometric estimates task, BSE blocks for self and other were counterbalanced and this meant that half of the participants in our study completed the judgment on the self after the judgment on the other. Hence, exposure to the other person’s body could, in principle, have influenced the subsequent rating on the self. To assess whether this influence occurred we ran explorative analyses that considered block order (self-first vs. other-first) as a factor. Specifically, we repeated the ANCOVAs described in the Analyses section adding block order (self-first vs. other-first) as a between-participant factor. None of these analyses revealed a significant main effect or interaction involving block order (all ps > 0.17). It should be remarked that the other person shown in the video was selected to be in the normal BMI range and of average attractiveness. Hence, unlike previous works (e.g., Cazzato et al., 2016) we did not use thin or overweight others that could trigger comparison judgments. Furthermore, it is important to note that our methods of constant stimuli entailed the presentation of an equal number of thinner/fatter distortions of the other. This could have also contributed to cancel out any potential bias related to seeing the other’s body before judging the self. Because our participants could differ in BMI with respect to the neutral other, we also repeated the analyses reported above, replacing EDR, with the participant’s BMI as a covariate. For PSE and body size attractiveness, none of these analyses revealed a significant main effect or interaction involving the block order variable (all ps > 0.11). For the Direct choice task, a main effect of block order (F(1, 69) = 5.91, p = 0.02, \(\eta _{{\text{p}}}^{2}\) = 0.08) and the interaction between block order and BMI (F(1, 69) = 7.10, p = 0.01, \(\eta _{{\text{p}}}^{2}\) = 0.09) reached significance. Critically, however, these effects of block order did not involve the Target variable, ps > 0.17. All other effect involving block order, ps > 0.14.
 
2
In our experimental design we counterbalanced the experimenter’s gender across participants (see Procedure section). To ascertain any potential influence of this factor on our dependent variables we also repeated the ANCOVAs described in the Analyses section adding Experimenter’s Gender as a between-participants factor, separately for each of our main dependent variables (BSE: PSE and direct choice; body size attractiveness). For the PSE we only found a main effect of Experimenter’s Gender, F(1, 69) = 5.65, p = 0.02, \(\eta _{{\text{p}}}^{2}\) = 0.08. Participants tested by the male experimenter generally underestimated more (M = − 7.40%, SD = 5.53) compared to those tested by the female experimenter (M = − 4.12%, SD = 4.64). Importantly, however, the Experimenter’s Gender did not interact with the other factors (all p > .10), indicating that this counterbalanced variable did not influence the SSB in male or female participants (i.e., there was no thee way interaction between Experimenter’s Gender, Participants’ Gender and Target; p = 0.12). For the Direct choice task, all main effects or interactions involving Experimenters’ Gender were not significant (all ps > 0.24, except for a marginal main effect of Experimenters’ Gender, F(1, 69) = 3.35, p = 0.07, \(\eta _{{\text{p}}}^{2}\) = 0.05). For body size attractiveness, we found a main effect of Experimenter’s Gender, F(1, 69) = 4.71, p = 0.03, \(\eta _{{\text{p}}}^{2}\) = 0.06. Participants tested by the male experimenter generally preferred thinner body distortions (M = − 13.40%, SD = 6.82) compared to those tested by the female experimenter (M = − 12.43%, SD = 7.16). The interaction between the Experimenters’ Gender interaction and EDR, F(1, 69) = 5.71, p = 0.02, \(\eta _{{\text{p}}}^{2}\) = 0.08, suggested that preference for thinner body distortions increased as EDR increases in those tested by the female experimenter, b = − 0.27, β = − 0.38, p = 0.02, but not in those tested by the male experimenter, b = 0.18, β = 0.31, p = 0.06. All other ps > .22 (except for a marginal interaction effect between Target and Experimenters’ Gender, F(1, 69) = 3.45, p = 0.07, \(\eta _{{\text{p}}}^{2}\) = 0.05).
 
3
After the direct choice task was performed on self and other, a direct body estimate was also repeated for the experimenter’s body. In this case, the Target factor included three levels: self, other and experimenter. The main effect of Target, F(2,138) = 8.01, p < 0.001, \(\eta _{{\text{p}}}^{2}\) = 0.10, showed that both experimenters (M = − 13.56%, SD = 9.89) were underestimated more than the self (M = − 5.96%, SD = 9.71) or the other (M = − 5.66%, SD = 7.58), ps < .001. Target interacted with EDR, F(2,138) = 4.71, p = 0.01, \(\eta _{{\text{p}}}^{2}\) = 0.06. EDR predicted body size estimation for the self (linear regression: b = 0.25, β = 0.28, p = 0.01; Figure 3d) but not for the other (linear regression: b = −.12, β = − 0.17, p = 0.14; Figure 3e) nor for the experimenters (linear regression: b = 0.001, β = 0.002, p = 0.99). Finally, Target interacted also with participants’ Gender, F(2,138) = 3.89, p = 0.02, \(\eta _{{\text{p}}}^{2}\) = 0.05. Women and men did not give different judgement for the self (women: M = − 7.03%, SD = 10.63; men: M = − 4.92%, SD = 8.73), p = 0.35, and the experimenter (women: M = − 12.76%, SD = 10.52; men: M = − 14.33%, SD = 9.31), p = 0.49, while women underestimated more the other seen in the video (M = − 7.68%, SD = 7.11) compare to men (M = − 3.69%, SD = 7.59), p = 0.02. Finally, both experimenters were judged thinner than the self and the other, ps < 0.02. All other ps > 0.09.
 
4
The correlation between the difference in BSE for self and other (i.e., our measure of SSB) and eating disorder risk remained significant even when controlling for Self-objectification (psychometric estimates: r = 0.44, p < 0.001; direct choice: r = 0.39, p = 0.001), Body surveillance (psychometric estimates: r = 0.45, p < 0.001; direct choice: r = 0.36, p = 0.001), Body shame (psychometric estimates: r = 0.42, p < 0.001; direct choice: r = 0.38, p = 0.001) and PACS (psychometric estimates: r = 0.47, p < 0.001; direct choice: r = 0.39, p < 0.001).
 
Literatuur
go back to reference Abramson, L. Y., & Alloy, L. B. (1981). Depression, nondepression, and cognitive illusions: Reply to Schwartz. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110(3), 436–447.CrossRef Abramson, L. Y., & Alloy, L. B. (1981). Depression, nondepression, and cognitive illusions: Reply to Schwartz. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110(3), 436–447.CrossRef
go back to reference Cacciari, E., Milani, S., Balsamo, A., Spada, E., Bona, G., Cavallo, L., Cerutti, F., Gargantini, L., Greggio, N., Tonini, G., & Cicognani, A. (2006). Italian cross-sectional growth charts for height, weight and BMI (2 to 20 year). Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, 29(7), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03344156.CrossRefPubMed Cacciari, E., Milani, S., Balsamo, A., Spada, E., Bona, G., Cavallo, L., Cerutti, F., Gargantini, L., Greggio, N., Tonini, G., & Cicognani, A. (2006). Italian cross-sectional growth charts for height, weight and BMI (2 to 20 year). Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, 29(7), 581–593. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​BF03344156.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Cornelissen, K. K., Cornelissen, P. L., Hancock, P. J., & Tovée, M. J. (2016). Fixation patterns, not clinical diagnosis, predict body size over-estimation in eating disordered women and healthy controls. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 49(5), 507–518. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22505.CrossRefPubMed Cornelissen, K. K., Cornelissen, P. L., Hancock, P. J., & Tovée, M. J. (2016). Fixation patterns, not clinical diagnosis, predict body size over-estimation in eating disordered women and healthy controls. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 49(5), 507–518. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eat.​22505.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T. A., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 269.CrossRef Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T. A., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 269.CrossRef
go back to reference Garner, D. M. (2004). EDI 3: Eating disorder inventory-3: Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources. Garner, D. M. (2004). EDI 3: Eating disorder inventory-3: Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
go back to reference Giannini, M., Pannocchia, P., Dalle Grave, R., Muratori, F., & Viglione, V. (2008). Eating disorder inventory-3. Firenze: Giunti OS. Giannini, M., Pannocchia, P., Dalle Grave, R., Muratori, F., & Viglione, V. (2008). Eating disorder inventory-3. Firenze: Giunti OS.
go back to reference Mussap, A. J., McCabe, M. P., & Ricciardelli, L. A. (2008). Implications of accuracy, sensitivity, and variability of body size estimations to disordered eating. Body image, 5(1), 80–90.CrossRef Mussap, A. J., McCabe, M. P., & Ricciardelli, L. A. (2008). Implications of accuracy, sensitivity, and variability of body size estimations to disordered eating. Body image, 5(1), 80–90.CrossRef
go back to reference Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2012a). E-prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools, Inc. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2012a). E-prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools, Inc.
go back to reference Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2012b). E-prime reference guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools, Inc. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2012b). E-prime reference guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools, Inc.
go back to reference Thompson, J. K., Heinberg, L., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (1991). The physical appearance comparison scale. The Behavior Therapist, 14, 174. Thompson, J. K., Heinberg, L., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (1991). The physical appearance comparison scale. The Behavior Therapist, 14, 174.
Metagegevens
Titel
Thinner than yourself: self-serving bias in body size estimation
Auteurs
Mara Mazzurega
Jlenia Marisa
Massimiliano Zampini
Francesco Pavani
Publicatiedatum
22-11-2018
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1119-z

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2020

Psychological Research 4/2020 Naar de uitgave