Body Image, Self-Esteem, and Health-Related Behaviors Among Male and Female First Year College Students

Journal of College Student Development, Nov/Dec 2005 by Lowery, Sarah E, Kurpius, Sharon E Robinson, Befort, Christie, Blanks, Elva Hull, Et al

McKinley and Hyde (1996) reported Cronbach's alpha internal consistencies ranging from .76 to .89 for body surveillance, .68 to .76 for body control, and .70 to .84 for body shame and 2-week test-retest reliabilities of .79 for body surveillance, .73 for body control, and .79 for body shame. Significant negative correlations were found between the Body Esteem Scales (Franzoi & Shields, 1984) and both body surveillance (r = -.39) and body shame (r = -.51). When correlated with the Self-Consciousness Scales, body surveillance correlated strongly with public self-consciousness (r = .73). For this study, the Cronbach's alphas were .77 for body surveillance, .82 for body shame, and .66 for body control.

Weight and Appearance Visual Analogue Scales. These scales consist of two visual analogues, each 100 millimeters long and anchored by no dissatisfaction and extreme dissatisfaction (Heinberg & Thompson, 1995). The two analogues measure weight/size dissatisfaction and overall appearance dissatisfaction. Participants put an X on each line that corresponds to their level of dissatisfaction. Scores are measured with a metric ruler, and higher scores represent greater dissatisfaction. Heinberg and Thompson examined the construct validity of the Weight and Appearance Visual Analogue Scales by correlating them with the Eating Disorders Inventory-Body Dissatisfaction subscale (EDI-BD; Garner, 1997). Both the Visual Analogue Scales correlated significantly with die EDI-BD. Because the two Visual Analogue Scales shared 65% of common variance, Heinberg and Thompson suggested combining the two scales into a single measure of body dissatisfaction. In this study, the two Visual Analogue Scales, which correlated at .76 (p = .001), were averaged to comprise a measure of physical dissatisfaction that could range from zero to 100.

Contour Drawing Rating Scale. This scale (Thompson & Gray, 1995) consists of nine male and nine female contour drawings of graduated sizes. Men responded to the male figures, and women responded to the female figures. Participants checked the figure that reflected their current figure and circled the figure that reflected their ideal figure. The discrepancy between the current and ideal selections represents a measure of self-ideal discrepancy in body image. Thompson and Gray reported a one-week test-retest reliability of .78 with college-aged women. Validity was established by having college students order the drawings from thinnest to heaviest and indicate the drawings they believed to be anorexic or obese. Ninety-five percent of the students gave the correct ordering.

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. This 10-item scale was utilized to measure overall self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965). Items are rated from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (4). A sample item is: "I take a positive attitude toward myself." Five items that are negatively worded were recoded so that higher scores reflected more positive self-esteem. Total scores can range from 10 to 40. Rosenberg (1979) reported test-retest reliabilities ranging from .80 to .85. Convergent validity has been established with high correlation with the Coopersmith Self Esteem Inventory and with peer ratings of self-esteem (Demo, 1985). For this study's sample, the Cronbach's alpha was .79.