Previous studies focused on revealing the negative effects of media exposure to thin-ideals on body image, such as body dissatisfaction, but overlooked investigating a possible influence of deflated body image after thin-idealized media exposure on advertising effectiveness. Therefore, this study investigated how the exposure of thin- versus non-idealized model images in fashion ads influence body dissatisfaction and advertising effectiveness. A conceptual model was developed, based on social comparison theory. A total of 380 female college students responded to a web-based survey. Results indicate participants exposed to thin-idealized model images showed greater body dissatisfaction and lower advertising effectiveness than those participants exposed to non-idealized model images. However, inflated body dissatisfaction after exposure to thin-idealized model images did not significantly or negatively influence advertising effectiveness. For more positive body image development and managerial implications of fashion advertising strategies, the potential use of non-idealized model images is suggested.
BakerM. J.ChurchillG. A. (1977). The impact of physically attractive models on advertising evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 538–555.
2.
BissellK.RaskA. (2010). Real women on real beauty: Self-discrepancy, internalization of the thin ideal, and perceptions of attractiveness and thinness in Dove’s campaign for real beauty. International Journal of Advertising, 29, 643–668.
3.
BowerA. B.LandrethS. L. (2001). Is beauty best? Highly versus normally attractive models in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 30, 1–12.
4.
CaballeroM.J.LumpkinJ. R.MaddenC. S. (1989). Using physical attractiveness as an advertising tool: An empirical test of attraction phenomenon. Journal of Advertising Research, 29, 16–22.
5.
CashT.F.PruzinskyT. (2002). Body images: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
6.
CusumanoD.L.ThompsonJ. K. (1997). Body image and body shape ideals in magazines: Exposure, awareness and internalization. Sex Roles, 37, 701–721.
7.
DillmanD.A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). NewYork, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
8.
DittmarH.HowardS. (2004). Thin-ideal internalization and social comparison tendency as moderators of media models’ impact on women’s body-focused anxiety. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 768–791.
9.
FestingerL. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
10.
FordJ. B.LaTourM. S. (1996). Contemporary female perspectives of female role portrayals in advertising. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 18, 81–94.
11.
GroeszL.M.LevineM. P.MurnenS. K. (2002). The effect of experimental presentation of thin media images on body satisfaction: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 31, 1–16.
12.
GroganS. (1999). Body image: Understanding body dissatisfaction in men, women, and Children. New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
HalliwellE.DittmarH. (2004). Does size matter? The impact of model’s body size on women’s body-focused anxiety and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 104–122.
14.
HargreavesD.A.TiggemannM. (2004). Idealized media images and adolescent body image: Comparing boys and girls. Body Image, 1, 351–361.
15.
HeinbergL. J. (1996). Theories of body image: Perceptual, developmental, and sociocultural factors. In ThompsonJ. K. (Ed.), Body image, eating disorders, and obesity: An integrative guide to assessment and treatment (pp. 27–48). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
16.
HeinbergL.J.ThompsonJ. K. (1995). Body image and television images of thinness and attractiveness: A controlled laboratory investigation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 14, 325–338.
17.
HeinbergL.J.ThompsonJ. K.StormerS. (1995). Development and validation of the sociocultural attitudes toward appearance questionnaire (SATAQ). International Journal of Eating Disorder, 17, 81–89.
18.
JungJ. (2006). Media influence: Pre- and post-exposure of college women to media images and the effect of mood and body image. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 24, 335–344.
19.
JungJ.LennonS. J. (2003). Body image, appearance self-schema, and media images. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 32, 27–51.
20.
JungJ.LennonS. J.RuddN. A. (2001). Self-schema or self-discrepancy? Which best explains body image?Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 19, 171–184.
21.
KimH.DamhorstM. L. (2010). The relationship of body-related self-discrepancy to body dissatisfaction, apparel involvement, concerns with fit and size of garments, and purchase intentions in online apparel shopping. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 28, 239–254.
22.
KimJ.LennonS. J. (2007). Mass media and self-esteem, body image, and eating disorder tendencies. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 25, 3–23.
23.
LavidgeR. J.SteinerG. A. (1961). A model for predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 25, 59–62.
24.
LennonS.JLillethunA.BucklandS. S. (1999). Attitudes toward social comparison as a function of self-esteem: Idealized appearance and body image. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journals, 27, 379–405.
25.
NunnallyJ. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
26.
PetroshiusS.M.CrockerK. E. (1989). An empirical analysis of spokesperson characteristics on advertisement and product evaluations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 17, 217–225.
27.
RichinsM.L. (1991). Social comparison and the idealized images of advertising. The Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 71–83.
28.
SecordP.F.JourardS. M. (1953). The appraisal of body-cathexis: Body-cathexis and the self. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 17, 343–347.
29.
ShroutP.E.BolgerN. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445.
30.
SticeE.ZiembaC.MargolisJ.FlickP. (1996). The dual pathway model differentiates bulimics, subclinical bulimics, and controls: Testing the continuity hypothesis. Behavior Therapy, 27, 531–549.
31.
SulsJ.MartinR.WheelerL. (2002). Social comparison: Why, with whom and with what effect?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 159–163.
32.
TiggermannM. (2004). Media influences on body image development. In Cash T. F.PruzinskyT. (Eds.), Body images: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical Practice (pp. 91–98). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
33.
TillB.D.BuslerM. (2000). The match-up hypothesis: Physical attractiveness, expertise, and the role of fit on brand attitude, purchase intent and brand beliefs. Journal of Advertising, 29, 1–13.
34.
ThompsonJ. K.HeinbergL. J.TantleffS. (1991). The physical appearance comparison scale (PACS). The Behavior Therapist, 14, 174.
35.
ThompsonJ. K.HeinbergL. J.AltabeM.Tantleff-DunnS. (1999). Exacting beauty: Theory, assessment, and treatment of body image disturbance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
36.
ThompsonJ. K.SticeE. (2001). Thin-ideal internalization: Mounting evidence for a new risk factor for body image disturbance and eating pathology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 181–183.
37.
ThompsonJ. K.van den BergP.RoehrigM.GuardaA. S.HeinbergL. J. (2004). The sociocultural attitudes towards appearance scale-3 (SATAQ-3): Development and validation. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 35, 293–304.
38.
ThompsonM. A.GaryJ. J. (1995). Development and validation of a new body image assessment scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 258–269.
39.
TsaiC.ChangC. (2007). The effect of physical attractiveness of models on advertising effectiveness for male and female adolescents. Adolescence, 42, 827–836.
40.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2012). Anthropometric reference data for children and adults: United States, 2007–2010. Vital and Health Statistics, 11. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_252.pdf
41.
WillsT.A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 245–271.
