Sex Roles (2013) 69:469–479

DOI 10.1007/s11199-012-0189-4

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

“Only Girls Who Want Fat Legs Take the Elevator”: Body Image
in Single-Sex and Mixed-Sex Colleges
Bettina Spencer & Caitilin Barrett & Gina Storti &
Mara Cole

Published online: 1 July 2012

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract Because women at single-sex colleges are con- Keywords Body image . Women’s colleges .
stantly surrounded by other women with whom they can Single-sex schooling . Body dissatisfaction .
visually compare themselves, and because we believed that Social comparison
physical appearance-based social comparison would impact
body ideals and self-objectification, we predicted that stu-
dents at a women’s college would endorse thinner body
Introduction
ideals and display more self-objectification as compared to
female students at a mixed-sex college, and that these differ-
“Only girls who want fat legs take the elevator.” “You don’t
ences would be especially prominent between upper grade
know what a pierogi is? It’s basically a carb wrapped in a
level students. Surveys were completed by 175 undergrad-
carb.” “We’re going to live off of Diet Coke and celery until
uate female students at a women’s college and a mixed-sex
spring break.” These quotes were taken from hallway con-
college located in the same U.S. Midwestern city. Results
versations amongst students at a women’s college (person-
were opposite of what we predicted; women at the women’s
ally overheard by the first author over several weeks).
college were more likely to endorse larger body ideals,
Though the classrooms of women’s colleges are filled with
whereas women at the mixed-sex college were more likely
academic discussions and debates, the casual conversations
to endorse thinner ideals. As predicted, there was a signif-
between students often reveal a fixation with weight, ap-
icant difference in scores between the upper college year
pearance, body parts, dieting, and exercise. Although simi-
students; lower college year students did not show signifi-
lar conversations may be taking place at various colleges
cant differences in ideals, suggesting that although female
and universities, we propose that there is something distinct
students may enter college with similar body ideals, 4 years
about the environment of a women’s college that may leave
in a mixed-sex or single-sex setting can drastically alter how
young female students particularly vulnerable to body con-
women think about body types. There were no differences
cerns. We believe that the distinct component is physical
between schools for self-objectification or physical appear-
appearance social comparison, and we predict that under-
ance social comparison, and physical appearance social
graduate women at women’s colleges in the United States
comparison did not correlate to body ideals. Taken together,
will engage in more physical appearance-based social com-
this pattern of results suggests that social comparison does
parison, and as a result, display more body concern than
not influence body ideals, but rather, other characteristics of
women at mixed-sex colleges.
a single-sex and mixed-sex environment do. What these
The majority of research that examines the effect of
characteristics may be (e.g. presence of men, exposure to
single-sex schooling focuses on various components of ac-
counterstereotypic role models) are discussed.
ademic achievement (Chouinarda et al. 2008; Kessels and
Hannover 2008; Sullivan et al. 2010; Young and Fraser
1990). However, in addition to academics, school can also
B. Spencer (*) : C. Barrett : G. Storti : M. Cole be a source of social interaction and normative influence,
Saint Mary’s College,
particularly for female students in the United States (Werner
65 Spes Unica Hall,
Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA et al. 2008), and therefore, the more socially relevant com-
e-mail: bspencer@saintmarys.edu ponents of single-sex schooling need to be explored. One
470
large component of social interaction is social compari-
son (Festinger 1954). This research adds a new dimen-
sion to the existing literature and fits within this Sex
Roles special issue by focusing on a particular sociocul-
tural aspect of single-sex schooling that is a relatively
unexamined facet of this research area. Although our
study was conducted in the United States, we believe
that the findings are also relevant in other countries and
cultures. Single-sex grade schools, high schools, and
colleges can be found throughout the world, from The
Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls in South
Africa, to the Hwa Nan women’s college in China, to
the women’s polytechnic colleges of India, and to the
approximately 48 women’s colleges and 63 men’s col-
leges in the United States (National Center for Educa-
tion Statistics 2010). In regards to body satisfaction,
although body image concerns have long been considered
specific to European American women in the United States
(Gluck and Geliebter 2002; Sanchez and Crocker 2005;
Wildes et al. 2001), more and more non-White (Grabe and
Hyde 2006; Sabik et al. 2010; Williams et al. 2006) and
non-U.S. (Chisuwa and O’Dea 2010; Lam et al. 2009;
Wardle et al. 2006) women are facing the pressure to main-
tain a thinner ideal.
Single-Sex Environments
Single-sex schooling has been an ongoing topic of debate
for several decades in multiple countries (Harker 2000; Lee
and Bryk 1989; Marsh 1989). As described in part I of this
Sex Roles special issue, variations in methodology, sam-
pling, and political views have all contributed to contradic-
tory findings and ambiguous interpretations (Bigler and
Signorella 2011). Research on this topic has primarily fo-
cused on the intellectual benefits of a single-gender envi-
ronment and has provided mixed results (Chouinarda et al.
2008; Kessels and Hannover 2008). At the high school level
in a Canadian sample, girls did not necessarily benefit from
a single-sex environment in terms of explicit achievement
motivation in mathematics and language arts (Chouinarda et
al. 2008). Nevertheless, explicit reports of motivation may
be subject to demand characteristics, especially when report-
ing motivation for stereotypically gendered disciplines
(math and language arts); therefore it is important to also
examine implicit measures of single-sex schooling. Re-
search that examines more implicit measures of the impact
of single-sex schooling has found considerable differences
between students at single-sex and mixed-sex environments,
with German teenage girls in stereotypically masculine
courses (e.g., physics) reporting a better physics-related
self-concept than teenage girls in mixed-sex physics courses
(Kessels and Hannover 2008).
Sex Roles (2013) 69:469–479
While the debate of the academic merits of single-sex
schooling continues (for a recent review, see Halpern et al.
2011), other relevant issues have gone largely unexplored.
To date, there has been little research on the social, personal,
and emotional impacts of single-sex environments. In a
Nigerian sample, Egbochuku and Aihie (2009) found that
single-sex environments led to a more positive self-concept
for girls, and it seems possible that intangible aspects of
women’s identity (i.e., confidence, leadership skills, egali-
tarian beliefs, etc.), may be positively influenced in a single-
sex college through exposure to counterstereotypic role
models, and from possessing and maintaining all of the
leadership positions within an institution. Indeed, Dasgupta
and Asgari (2004) found that although female students at
mixed-sex and women’s colleges in the United States tend
to demonstrate similar levels of self-stereotyping in their 1st
year of college, by the 4th year of college students at a
women’s college showed an implicit reduction in self-
stereotyping. These results were mediated by students’ ex-
posure to female faculty members and the amount of math
and natural science courses completed during the students’
college career.
However, we propose that certain aspects of the self may
be negatively influenced in a single-gender environment.
One such aspect of the self is body-image. Young women
are under tremendous pressure to conform to thin body
ideals, and various forms of social comparison with peers,
cultural norms, and media figures play a large role in body
concerns (Glauert et al. 2009; Grogan et al. 1996; Neighbors
and Sobal 2007; Tiggemann and Miller 2010; Tiggemann
and Polivy 2010; Want et al. 2009). Flicek and Urbas (2003)
tested for differences in eating behavior and body awareness
between same-sex and mixed-sex university residence halls
in the United States, and predicted that women in the mixed-
sex environment would report more disordered eating. Con-
trary to their prediction, they did not find any significant
difference between the two samples. Conversely, Mensinger
(2001) argued that disordered eating and body dissatisfac-
tion would be more prevalent in single-sex environments
due to conflicting gender role pressures. This theory sup-
ports Tiggemann’s research (2001) that examined body
ideals, disordered eating, and roles at mixed-sex and
single-sex Australian high-schools. Similar to Flicek and
Urbas (2003), Tiggemann’s results showed that there were
no significant differences between the samples in relation to
body concerns or eating symptomology. However, there was
a significant difference in role concerns, with students at the
single-sex school placing a larger emphasis on achievement.
These results contradict previous research that did find a
difference in body ideals, with Australian high school stu-
dents in a single-sex environment endorsing thinner body
ideals than students in a mixed-sex environment (Dyer and
Tiggemann 1996). Davey et al. (2011) also predicted that
Sex Roles (2013) 69:469–479
women who had previously attended single-sex Australian
high schools would endorse thinner body ideals, show more
disordered eating symptomology, and display more role
concern than female participants who had previously
attended mixed-sex Australian high schools. These predic-
tions align with Tiggemann’s (2001) theory and the results
provided some support and some contradictions. Female
participants in this study did not differ in regards to eating
disorder symptomology or role concerns, but the partici-
pants from the single-sex environment did endorse thinner
body ideals than female participants from the mixed-sex
environment (Davey et al. 2011).
Because previous studies have provided somewhat mixed
results for a number of different body image related varia-
bles (e.g., disordered eating, body dissatisfaction, gender
role pressure) with different age groups in different loca-
tions, the current experiment aims to clarify whether single-
sex environments do indeed impact college-aged U.S. wom-
en in regards to body ideals. Specifically, we propose that a
single-sex environment may heighten body concerns be-
cause the constant presence of same-gender peers would
provide more opportunity for a woman to compare her body
against other women’s bodies. Undergraduate women in the
U.S. do tend to engage in social comparison as it relates to
body image and physical attributes (Heinberg and Thompson
1992). Jones (2001) examined appearance-based social com-
parison amongst Junior High aged boys and girls in the U.S.
and found that both genders do compare their physical attrib-
utes to same-sex peers, and that social comparison positively
correlates with body dissatisfaction. Additionally, in a Cana-
dian sample social comparison was found to play a larger role
in body concerns than other sociocultural variables, such as
exposure to thin ideals in the media (Morrison et al. 2004) and
at the college level, students in the U.S. are more likely to
compare their physical appearance to that of other students,
rather than models or athletes (Franzoi and Klaiber 2007).
Indeed, social comparison pressure from same-gender peers is
one of the most influential factors in women’s body dissatis-
faction. From childhood in to adulthood, for women, same-
gender parents and siblings (i.e., mothers and sisters) are
especially powerful in shaping body dissatisfaction (Coomber
and King 2008; Rodgers et al. 2009). In an Australian sample,
Tsiantas and King (2001) tested for social comparison and
body satisfaction between close in age same gender sib-
lings and found that younger siblings who compared
themselves to their older peer reported more body dissat-
isfaction. Same-gender peers play an especially large role
in young women’s desire to be thin through social com-
parison, joint dieting, and clique membership (Hutchinson
and Rapee 2007; Wertheim et al. 1997). Although women
at mixed-sex colleges might also compare themselves to
other women, and have the added scrutiny of male stu-
dents, we argue that the impact still is not as strong as the
471
pressure of constant physical appearance-based social
comparison.
College women, in particular, may be especially suscep-
tible to social comparison and pressures to be thin. Although
body dissatisfaction has been observed in girls in the U.S. as
young as 3 years old (Harriger et al. 2010), physical social
comparison, and thereby body dissatisfaction, may increase
throughout adolescence (Schutz et al. 2002), presumably
being most heightened during late-teenage, early adult-
hood (college) years. College is already an especially
vulnerable time for women in the U.S. regards to body
satisfaction (Sanftner et al. 2009), and considering that
many college experiences are rather insular, with students
living in close quarters with one another, eating together,
attending class together, and spending free time together,
it is reasonable to assume that social comparison would
increase during this time.
From these lines of research, we can trace the ways in
which women in single-sex and mixed-sex environments
may differ, and also how female body dissatisfaction is
influenced by the presence of same gender peers via phys-
ical appearance-based social comparison. Overall, women
who score high in body dissatisfaction are more likely to
compare their own bodies to their peers’ bodies and to larger
cultural ideals (Trampe et al. 2007), and women who score
high in social comparison in general tend to be especially
susceptible to peer influence to be thin (Shomaker and Furman
2007). Furthermore, women who compare themselves to other
women demonstrate significantly more body dissatisfaction
than women who do not engage in as much social comparison
(Myers and Crowther 2009).
In the present study we are examining if and why there
are differences in body concern between mixed-sex and
single-sex colleges. To do this, female participants from
two Midwestern schools in the United States—one single-
sex and one mixed-sex, completed measures of body ideals
and self-objectification. We specifically chose body ideals
and self-objectification as measures of “body concern” be-
cause the endorsement of thinner female ideals and a dis-
parity between actual/ideal body size is closely linked with
body dissatisfaction (Lavine et al. 1999). In regards to body
ideals, we specifically examined participants’ personal
ideals, as well as perceived men’s, women’s, and college
peers’ female ideals (that is, what participants believed other
men, women, and peers believe are the most attractive
female body type) because women tend to overestimate
men’s and women’s preference for thin body types (Cohn
and Adler 1992). Additionally, self-objectification correlates
with a wide range of relevant attitudes, such as body shame,
low body esteem, and body related thoughts (Fredrickson
and Roberts 1997; Grabe and Hyde 2009; Quinn et al.
2006). Body ideals were measured using a modified version
the Pictorial Body Image Scale (Stunkard et al. 1983), and
472
self-objectification was measured using the Fredrickson et
al. (1998) Self-Objectification Questionnaire. To examine
the possible influence of physical appearance-based social
comparison on body concern, participants also completed a
5-item measure of physical appearance social comparison
(Thompson et al. 1991).
Because college is already a particularly vulnerable time
for women in regards to body satisfaction, and because
women at single-sex colleges are constantly surrounded by
other women with whom they can visually compare them-
selves, we predicted that women in single-sex colleges
would differ from women in mixed-sex colleges in relation
to body concern in several ways. To support our theory that
there is something specific about the mixed-sex versus
single-sex college environment that causes the differences
in body concern, and to help us rule out a self-selection
problem, we employed a cross-sectional approach and spe-
cifically compared 1st and 4th year students at the two
different colleges. We believed that students would enter
the different types of college with similar levels of body
ideal and self-objectification, and that the differences would
emerge between students as a result of the college environ-
ment over the course of 4 years. Taken together, these
theories led to five specific hypotheses:
1. Students at a women’s college will endorse a thinner
personal body ideal, and believe that men, women, and
their college peers’ will endorse a thinner female body
ideal, and will show a greater actual/ideal disparity, as
compared to female students at a mixed-sex college.
2. Students at a women’s college will report more trait self-
objectification as compared to female students at a
mixed-sex college.
3. Students at a women’s college will report higher levels
of physical appearance social comparison as compared
to female students at a mixed-sex college.
4. Physical appearance social comparison will corre-
late with levels of body dissatisfaction and self-
objectification.
5. Differences in body ideals and self-objectification will
be most prominent between the two groups of student
who are in the 4th year of college.
Method
Participants
Female participants were recruited from a small Midwestern
women’s college (N0120) and a mixed-sex college (N055)
that are located in the same U.S. city, producing a total of
175 participants. Both institutions are private and similar in
terms of income and ethnicity demographics. The single-sex
Sex Roles (2013) 69:469–479
college has a student population of 1,555 undergraduates
that is 83.3 % White, 1.6 % Black, 0.2 % Indigenous
American, 1.7 % Asian, 7.8 % Latina, 1.3 % multiracial,
with a median income of $90,584. The mixed-sex school is
larger, with a student population of 8,332 undergraduates,
that is 46.8 % female, 78.2 % White, 3.7 % Black, 0.7 %
Indigenous American, 5.4 % Asian, and 8.2 % Latino/a. The
mixed-sex college does not release information about stu-
dents’ parents’ median income, but considering that tuition
for 2010 was over $53,000, and that many families have
children that go to either the same-sex or mixed-sex college,
it is reasonable to assume that the median income of the
mixed-sex college is similar to the median income of the
same-sex college.
All participants were students who volunteered to
participate based on announcements made in various
introductory and advanced level courses. Participants
varied in age (M 020.6, SD 01.51), ethnicity, and in-
come, but were representative of the general college
demographics, that is, participants were predominately
White (79.4 %) and generally wealthy (17.7 % with a
family income over $155,000). The sample was mostly
comprised of 4th year (58.9 %) and 1st year (26.9 %)
students, with some 2nd (8.6 %) and 3rd year (5.7 %)
students. Because there were so few 2nd and 3rd year
students, the four grade levels were collapsed in to two
categories for analysis: Lower college years (comprised
of 1st and 2nd year students 05.4 %) and upper college
years (comprised of 3rd and 4th year students 064.6 %).
Materials and Procedure
Body Ideal
To assess body ideal all participants rated their actual and
ideal body weight, as well as the perceived ideal for other
women, men, and students at their college using a modified
version of the Pictorial Body Image Scale (Stunkard et al.
1983). The scale consists of nine female figures that range
from very thin to very heavy (very thin 01, very heavy 0100).
Specifically, participants were asked report which drawing
looked the most like their own figure; which figure they most
wanted to look like; which figure they thought that men find
most attractive; which figure they thought that women find
most attractive; and which figure they thought students at their
own college find most attractive. The questions that gauged
body image ideals (personal ideal, men ideal, women ideal,
and college ideal) were highly reliable as a scale (α0.84), but
individual scores were used separately in the analysis in order
to obtain a more nuanced understanding of how our partic-
ipants thought about different types of body ideals. In addition
to general ideal scores, we also created an actual/ideal
Sex Roles (2013) 69:469–479
discrepancy score by subtracting participants’ “personal ideal”
from their “actual” body rating.
Self-Objectification
Self-objectification was assessed through the Self-
Objectification Questionnaire (Fredrickson et al. 1998).
The scale lists 10 different traits that are appearance
(e.g., weight, sex appeal) or competence based (e.g.,
physical coordination, energy level) and participants rat-
ed (from 0 to 9) the attribute that they considered
having the least impact on their physical self-concept
(0) to most impact on their physical self-concept (9).
Scores were obtained by summing the numbers assigned
to appearance-related items, summing the numbers
assigned to competence-based items, and then subtracting
the competence score from the appearance score. Thus, scores
could range from −25 to 25 with higher scores reflecting a
greater emphasis on appearance, thereby demonstrating a
higher degree of self-objectification. This questionnaire tends
to correlate with many related measures such as the Appear-
ance Anxiety Scale (Dion et al. 1990) and the Body Image
Assessment Scale (Williamson et al. 1989), and has thus
shown good construct validity (Noll and Fredrickson 1998).
Social Comparison
Next, participants completed the 5-item Physical Appear-
ance Comparison Scale (PACS; Thompson et al. 1991).
Participants were asked to report on a 1–5 scale (10 not at
all/not very much, 50 very much) how much each statement
or question applied to their own life. Statements from the
PACS included, “At parties or other social events, I compare
my physical appearance to the physical appearance of
others”; “The best way for a person to know if they are
overweight or underweight is to compare their figure to the
figure of others”; “At parties or other social events, I com-
pare how I am dressed to how other people are dressed.”
The five PACS items were moderately reliable as a scale
(α0.63) and thus averaged together to form a “physical
appearance social comparison” score. This reliability is
slightly lower than Thompson et al.’s (1991) reported reli-
ability (α0.78), but is consistent with other research which
typically reports a moderate (α0.61) to acceptable (α0.85)
range of reliability (Jackson and Chen 2010; Tiggemann and
Miller 2010).
Procedure
Participants were recruited from introductory and advanced
courses at two colleges within the same city. Some partic-
ipants received extra credit, depending on each professor’s
preference, whereas other participants volunteered. The
473
study was described as a survey to examine attitudes and
perceptions of college women. The study was conducted
electronically through an online survey website. Participants
received a link to the study from their professor, who
emailed it to their female students, so that any student could
choose whether or not they wanted to participate. If a
student chose to follow the link, she was directed to a
website where she received the consent form. After reading
a consent form and signaling agreement to participate, all
participants completed the self-objectification questionnaire
which was on its own page. Next, participants proceeded to
the next page of the online survey and completed the phys-
ical appearance social comparison scale. After the physical
appearance social comparison scale, which was also on its
own page, participants proceeded to the last survey page and
completed the body ideal scale. Limitations of the website
did not allow for the counterbalancing of measures, so the
measures were taken in an order that we thought would be
least confounding. Upon completion of all the measures,
participants were taken to an online debriefing statement,
were encouraged to print a copy for their own records, and
to contact the researchers via telephone or email if they had
any questions.
Results
School Differences
We first tested for whether there were any significant differ-
ences between the two samples for any of the demographic
information that was collected. A one-way ANOVA
revealed that there was a significant difference for age, F
(1, 162) 09.8, p < .01 (Single-Sex M 020.86, SD 01.41;
Mixed-Sex M020.11, SD01.57). A two-way ANOVA for
college year and school type on age was conducted to
further explore whether this difference was due to the dis-
tribution of college year by school type, or a school type
effect on age. There was only a significant main effect of
college yearF(3, 161) 0263.55, p < .001, therefore, we
believe that the age difference was due to the uneven
distribution and age was not used as a covariate in the
proceeding analyses. Two chi-square tests were conducted
to examine differences in ethnicity and income between
the two samples. There was no significant difference of
ethnicity or for income.
Ideal Body Image
Hypothesis 1 was that students at a women’s college would
endorse a thinner body ideal as compared to female students
at a mixed-sex college. “Ideal” was measured as perceived
personal ideal, perceived men’s ideal, perceived women’s
474
ideal, perceived college peers’ ideal, and actual/ideal dis-
crepancy. A 2 x 2 (college type and college year) factorial
MANOVA on body ideal scores revealed that although there
were main effects of college type, they were not in the
predicted direction, Wilks’ λ0.94, F(4, 168)02.64, p<.04.
There were significant main effects of college type on per-
ceived men’s and perceived women’s ideals, so that partic-
ipants from the single-sex college believed that men in
general prefer a larger ideal than participants from the
mixed-sex college, F(1, 171)06.59, p0.01, and that women
in general prefer a larger ideal, F(1, 171)05.10, p0.02.
There was a marginally significant main effect of college
type on personal ideal with participants from the single-sex
college preferring a larger personal ideal (M031.65, SD0
10.28) than participants from a mixed-sex college (M0
28.61, SD06.41), F(1, 171)03.56, p0.06. There were no
significant differences in college peers’ ideal, or actual/ideal
discrepancy scores.
There were no main effects of college year on any of the
ideal scores, although there was a marginally significant
interaction effect of college type and college year on per-
sonal ideal, F(1, 171)03.39, p0.06, with the students from
both colleges starting off in the lower college years with
similar ideal scores (Single-sex M 029.80, SD 01.49;
Mixed-Sex M029.74, SD01.49), but diverging by the upper
college years, with students from the single-sex environ-
ment endorsing a larger ideal (M032. 41, SD0.84) and
students from the mixed-sex environment endorsing a thin-
ner ideal (M027.53, SD01.46; see Fig. 1); thus supporting
hypothesis 5.
Simple main effects testing revealed that there were no
significant differences between any of the ideal scores com-
paring students in lower college years at the single-sex and
mixed-sex colleges for personal ideal, men’s ideal, women’s
ideal, college peers’ ideal, and actual/ideal discrepancy. As
predicted, there were significant differences between stu-
dents in the upper college years at the single-sex and
mixed-sex colleges for personal ideal, F(1,111)09.84, p
33
32
31
30
Own Ideal
29
28
27
26
Single-Sex
Mixed-Sex
25
Lower College Years Upper College Years
College Year
Fig. 1 Mean values for own ideal score between lower college years
and upper college years female students at single-sex and mixed sex
colleges
Sex Roles (2013) 69:469–479
<.01; men’s ideal, F(1,111)06.37, p<.02; and women’s
ideal, F(1,111)05.87, p<.02. There were no significant
differences for college peers’ ideal, and actual/ideal discrep-
ancy. Overall, upper college year students at the single-sex
college endorsed a larger personal ideal, perceived men’s
ideal, and perceived women’s ideal than the upper college
year students at the mixed-sex college (see Table 1 for all
means and standard deviations).
Self-Objectification
Hypothesis 2 was that students at a women’s college would
report more trait self-objectification as compared to female
students at a mixed-sex college. A 2×2 (college type and
college year) ANOVA on self-objectification score revealed
that there were no significant differences in self-objectification
by college type, college year, or an interaction between col-
lege and college year, thus, this hypothesis was not supported.
Physical Appearance Social Comparison
Hypothesis 3 was that students at a women’s college would
report higher levels of physical appearance social compari-
son as compared to female students at a mixed-sex college.
A 2×2 (college type and college year) ANOVA on physical
appearance social comparison revealed that this hypothesis
was not supported. There was no significant difference by
college type, college year, or an interaction between college
type and college year.
Hypothesis 4 was that physical appearance social com-
parison would correlate with levels of body dissatisfaction
and self-objectification. Physical appearance social compar-
ison did not correlate with any of the body ideal scores,
college type, or college year, but did negatively correlate
with self objectification r(169)0−.96, p<.01 (see Table 2).
Discussion
Women at a single-sex college endorsed significantly larger
perceived women’s and perceived men’s body ideals than
women at a mixed-sex college. They also endorsed a mar-
ginally significantly larger personal ideal than women at a
mixed-sex college. These findings are the exact opposite of
what we predicted. We believed that women at the single-
sex college would endorse thinner ideals and that women at
a mixed-sex college would endorse larger ideals. Impor-
tantly, there were no significant differences between lower
college year students at the single-six and mixed-sex col-
leges on any variable related to body concern. There were,
however, significant differences between upper college year
students, with students at the single-sex college endorsing
larger personal, perceived men’s, and perceived women’s
Sex Roles (2013) 69:469–479 475

Table 1 Means and standard deviations of female participants’ body ideal variables by college type and college year

Single-Sex College (N0120) Mixed-Sex College (N055)

Lower College Years (N035) Upper College Years (N085) Lower College Years (N027) Upper College Years (N028)

Body Ideals Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Own Ideal 29.80 1.49 32. 41** 7.38 29.74 1.49 27.53** 6.29
Men’s Ideal 29.65 9.39 30.25* 7.43 27.25 4.45 26.64* 5.54
Women’s Ideal 25.54 7.23 27.20* 8.05 23.07 5.26 23.14* 6.39
Peers’ Ideal 25.02 11.42 25.03 7.54 25.50 4.20 22.92 4.85
Actual/Ideal Discrepancy 12.12 9.62 10.95 10.65 10.34 8.24 9.47 8.99

Ideal scores had a possible range of 1–100, with higher scores indicating a preference for a larger ideal. Actual/Ideal discrepancy scores had a
possible range of 0–99, with higher scores indicating more of a discrepancy. * p<.05, ** p<.01

ideals than women at the mixed-sex college. This finding
suggests that there is no self-selection bias in who
attends a single vs. mixed-sex college in terms of body
concerns, and if differences do emerge throughout the
course of study, it may be due to environmental factors
within the college setting. Contrary to our predictions,
there was no effect of college type or college year on
perceived peers’ body ideal, self-objectification, or actual/
ideal disparity. Interestingly, there was also no effect of
college type or college year on physical appearance so-
cial comparison.
We interpret these findings as meaning that women in
single-sex and mixed-sex colleges do differ in regards to
body concerns, but not in the direction and the manner that
we predicted. Importantly, the women do not self-select in to
the two different styles of colleges based on pre-existing
concerns, but rather, the concerns are formed and shaped
throughout the college process. Although physical appear-
ance social comparison was not different between the
schools or college years, overall, physical appearance social
comparison did correlate with self-objectification, but none
of our body ideal measures. Therefore, it appears that
physical appearance social comparison does relate to self-
objectification, but levels of physical appearance social
comparison and self-objectification do not seem to vary
based on the gender composition of colleges. This may be
because physical appearance social comparison can occur
with the presence of a minimal amount of same-gender
peers, and therefore can exist regardless of whether there
are many or a few people against whom one can socially
compare. Self-objectification may have been the same be-
tween the samples because the questionnaire gauged trait
rather than state self-objectification, and it is possible that
trait self-objectification is already relatively fixed by the
time that women enter college. It is important to note that
our physical appearance social comparison measure had
moderate reliability (α0.63), therefore these interpretations
should be considered with caution. The fact that there were
no significant differences between the two colleges on many
of our measures lend support to previous research that found
few differences between single-sex and mixed-sex environ-
ments (Flicek and Urbas 2003; Tiggemann 2001). However,
the fact that we did find significant differences for several of
the ideal measures, particularly between upper college year

Table 2 Intercorrelations of all variables by college type

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 College Year – .142 .048 .154 .000 .112 −.106

2 Own Ideal −.173 – .700** .628** .597** .063 −.079
3 Men’s Ideal −.062 .313* – .587** .603** −.036 .022
4 Women’s Ideal .006 .386** .370** – .679** −.080 .059
5 Peers’ Ideal −.277* .370** .482** .334* – .038 −.058
6 Social Comparison .022 .302* .051 .019 .020 – −1.00**
7 Self-Objectification −.049 −.352** −.100 −.107 −.059 −.869** –

Table of Pearson Correlations of all variables. Scores in the upper diagonal are from female participants at the same-sex college, scores in the lower
diagonal are from female participants at the mixed-sex college. Higher scores for the ideal measures indicate a preference for a larger body type.
Higher scores for the social comparison scale indicate more social comparison, and higher scores on the self-objectification scale indicate more self-
objectification. * p<.05, ** p<.01
476
students, suggest that there may very well be something
unique about a single-sex environment.
Moreover, because we separated our sample in to two
categories, lower and upper college years, we may have
detected a nuance that previous research did not. In other
words, previous research on single-sex environments tends
to collapse age categories and therefore does not account for
accumulated differences depending on amount of time spent
within the single-sex environment. Our study teased apart
students who had been in the single-sex and mixed-sex
environments a relatively short amount of time from the
students who had been in the environments a longer amount
of time. Because we did see a stronger difference between
the upper level students, this suggests that there may be a
certain “gestation period” required for people to be truly
impacted by a single-sex or mixed-sex environment in
regards to body concerns.
There were several limitations to this study. First, our
study was limited in the distribution of participants between
school year and college type, as can happen in an ex post
facto cross-sectional design. There were many more partic-
ipants from the single-sex college than the mixed-sex col-
lege, and our sample consisted of more upper college year
students than lower college year students. Ideally, we would
have had an approximately equal number of participants in
each college year and both college types. Second, we only
recruited participants from two colleges. We chose these two
colleges because they are very similar in terms of demo-
graphics and location – they are literally right across the
street from one another. For future research we would recruit
participants from several colleges so that we can be sure that
these effects are not specific just to this particular location.
Third, we only had moderate reliability on our physical
appearance social comparison scale (α 0.63). Although
there was a correlation between physical appearance social
comparison and self-objectification, we feel that if our scale
had been stronger we may have seen more of a correlation
with our body ideal measures. Finally, due to limitations of
the equipment we were working with we were not able to
counterbalance our materials. Obviously this is something
that we would want to correct in future research. Despite
these limitations, we believe that this research is important
in helping us better understand the differing social dynamics
in single-sex colleges as compared to mixed-sex colleges.
This research adds a new dimension to the discussion of
single-sex and mixed-sex environments by focusing on a
more social aspect of single-sex schooling, and by clarifying
some previously mixed-findings. We predicted that women
in single-sex environments would endorse a thinner ideal
because of increased social comparison, but instead found
that women at a single-sex college endorsed several larger
ideals, and that self-objectification and social comparison
did not differ between the mixed-sex and single-sex
Sex Roles (2013) 69:469–479
environments. Our results differ, in part, from previous
research. Tiggemann (2001) did not find significant differ-
ences between mixed-sex and single-sex environments in
regards to body concerns. However, the participants in her
sample were adolescents (Mage 016.1), whereas ours were
college-aged (Mage 020.6). This age difference may account
for the difference in our findings. Although body concerns
tend to start at a young age, college-aged women, who
might be dating more seriously in college than they did in
high school, may be more vulnerable to body concerns than
adolescents and therefore more likely to endorse the thin
ideal, particularly in a mixed-sex environment. Davey et al.
(2011) did find differences in body ideals between the two
types of environments, but found that participants who had
attended a single-sex high school endorsed thinner body
ideals than participants who attended a mixed-sex high
school. This research supports our original prediction but
contradicts our actual findings. It is important to note that
like Tiggemann (2001), the researchers were examining the
impact of single-sex and mixed-sex high schools. Addition-
ally, participants were current first year college students and
had completed high school within the previous 2 years
(Davey et al. 2011). Our participants were enrolled in mix-
sex and single-sex colleges; therefore we were able to assess
their current body image concerns within the context of their
immediate environment. Furthermore, our participants
attended residential colleges and may have been more iso-
lated from other environments than high school students
who, depending on the school, may be in other environ-
ments during evenings and weekends. These differences in
sampling, along with differences in age, may account for our
contradictory findings in regards to body ideals.
Interestingly, similar to the current study, Davey et al.
(2011) found that physical appearance based social compar-
ison did not differ between groups. We interpret these results
as meaning that there is some component of college life,
other than physical appearance-based social comparison,
that is influencing women’s body concerns at some point
during the college experience. The question is, however,
what and where is the component? In other words, is there
an environmental factor at women’s colleges that protects
against body concerns, or is there an environmental factor at
mixed-sex colleges that exacerbates body concerns? Flicek
and Urbas’ (2003) null finding in regards to disordered
eating and body awareness between mixed and single-
gender residence halls may be a reflection of the fact that
whatever possible buffers and barriers that emerged from the
gender composition in the various residence halls were
made moot in the overarching environment of the university.
Our results may be more indicative of the power of the
larger educational environment.
If there is an environmental factor at women’s colleges
that protects against body concerns, our work would
Sex Roles (2013) 69:469–479
compliment Dasgupta and Asgari’s (2004) in the sense that
our results suggest that there may be a buffer built in to the
dynamics of a women’s college that prevents female students
from succumbing to cultural ideals. It is possible that certain
aspects of a women’s college (e.g., endorsement of feminist
views, encouragement to take gender studies courses, a greater
likelihood of taking math and science courses in a supportive
classroom, and exposure to counter-stereotypic role models)
could all work as mediating factors in regards to body con-
cerns. Although these themes may not seem explicitly related
to body image, all of these factors taken together, along with
the previous finding that single-sex environments encourage
girls to have a more positive self-concept (Egbochuku and
Aihie 2009), can lead to less self-stereotyping, and of course,
the content of self-stereotypes can include stereotypes about
bodies and physical ideals.
If, however, there is an environmental factor at mixed-sex
colleges that exacerbates body concerns, it would be impor-
tant to isolate the possible components so we can work to
intervene and prevent the idealization of thin female bodies
on mixed-sex campuses. It is possible that exposure to a
greater number of male faculty than female faculty, and
maybe having less encouragement to participate in feminist
focused events and courses could all work to undermine a
female student’s sense of body satisfaction. Because the
male gaze has been found to have a very powerful effect
on female body concerns (Calogero 2004), it is also possible
that the presence of men works to undermine college wom-
en’s body satisfaction. This would not necessarily contradict
previous findings on the impact of same-gender social com-
parison on body concerns (Myers and Crowther 2009;
Trampe et al. 2007), but rather, suggests that the male gaze
may actually be more influential than same-gender physical
appearance social comparison and therefore more powerful
in shaping women’s body concerns than the presence of
other women.
Considering that in our study the women at the mixed-
sex college endorsed a thinner ideal by the 4th year and that
women at the single-sex college endorsed a larger ideal by
the 4th year, this pattern of results suggests that there are
unique features of both types of environments that are
driving perceived body ideals in opposite directions. Once
we have a better understanding of the buffers of a single-sex
college setting and the dangers of a mixed-sex college
setting we can work to incorporate the buffers and reduce
the dangers in the mixed-sex college environment. Inas-
much, more research is needed to help elucidate what ex-
actly is influencing women in single-sex and mixed-sex
environments. Thus, future research should aim to provide a
better understanding of the impact of gender composition in
schools, and to better identify the unique factors in single-sex
and mixed-sex colleges that can impact body concerns. As
such, it is important to continue focusing on the relatively
477
underexplored research area of social dynamics within
single-sex colleges. Social factors that could be explored
include the amount of time female students spend with
other women and men, and also the types of activities
that students are engaging in at various colleges. There
has been no research on differences between social
activities at single-sex and mixed-sex colleges, so we
can only speculate if students at the different types of
colleges are participating in significantly different activ-
ities that influence how they feel about themselves and
their bodies. In addition to environmental factors, we
may also want to further explore the role of more personal,
internalized moderating variables. Tiggemann (2001) and
Mensinger (2001) argued that gender role concerns and gen-
der role conflict predicted differences in motivations for thin-
ness, and that gender roles vary between mixed-sex and
single-sex colleges. However, a recent study that examined
the relation between gender roles, body shame, and appear-
ance anxiety did not find gender roles to be a significant
predictor of body concerns (Choma et al. 2010). Because of
these mixed-results, further research should continue to ex-
plore how variables such as gender roles, gender role conflict,
and internalized sexism vary in mixed-sex and single-sex
colleges, and how these and other variables connect to one
another and to body concerns.
We predicted our hypotheses, in part, on the daily
occurrences of diet, weight, and appearance based con-
versation we heard around us at the women’s college
where we work and study. Within our own campus, we
felt that physical appearance social comparison was the
strongest influence in how we thought about our bodies.
We now realize that perhaps the conversations in the
single-sex environment were “body dissatisfaction lite”
and we are worried about what sort of conversations are
happening (or not happening) in mixed-sex colleges. We
also realize that physical appearance-based social com-
parison may happen in a variety of environments, and
regardless, does not appear to have the largest impact in
how we think about our physical selves and our body
ideals. Moreover, we hope that a better understanding of
the social dynamics of single-sex colleges can help us develop
techniques and strategies to protect young women in mixed-
sex colleges from the pressure to be thin.
References
Bigler, R. S., & Signorella, M. L. (2011). Single-sex education: New
perspectives and evidence on a continuing controversy. Sex Roles,
65, 659–669. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0046-x.
Calogero, R. M. (2004). A test of objectification theory: The effect of
the male gaze on appearance concerns in college women. Psy-
chology of Women Quarterly, 28, 16–21. doi:10.1111/j.1471-
6402.2004.00118.x.
478
Chisuwa, N., & O’Dea, J. A. (2010). Body image and eating disorders
amongst Japanese adolescents. A review of the literature. Appe-
tite, 54, 5–15. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2009.11.008.
Choma, B., Visser, B., Pozzebon, J., Bogaert, A., Busseri, M., &
Sadava, S. (2010). Self-objectification, self-esteem, and gender:
Testing a moderated mediation model. Sex Roles, 63, 645–656.
doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9829-8.
Chouinarda, R., Vezeau, C., & Bouffard, T. (2008). Coeducational or
single-sex school: Does it make a difference on high school girls’
academic motivation? Educational Studies, 34, 129–144.
doi:10.1080/03055690701811180.
Cohn, L. D., & Adler, N. E. (1992). Female and male perceptions of
ideal body shapes: Distorted views among Caucasian college
students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 69–79.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1992.tb00240.x.
Coomber, K., & King, R. M. (2008). The role of sisters in body image
dissatisfaction and disordered eating. Sex Roles, 59, 81–93.
doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9413-7.
Dasgupta, N., & Asgari, S. (2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to
counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on the malleabil-
ity of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 40, 642–658. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.02.003.
Davey, Z., Jones, M. K., & Harris, L. M. (2011). A comparison of
eating disorder symptomatology, role concerns, figure preference
and social comparison between women who have attended single
sex and coeducational schools. Sex Roles, 65, 751–759.
doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9942-3.
Dion, K. L., Dion, K. K., & Keelan, J. P. (1990). Appearance
anxiety as a dimension of social-evaluative anxiety: Explor-
ing the ugly duckling syndrome. Contemporary Social Psy-
chology, 14, 220–224.
Dyer, G., & Tiggemann, M. (1996). The effect of school environment
on body concerns in adolescent women. Sex Roles, 34, 127–138.
doi:10.1007/BF01544800.
Egbochuku, E. O., & Aihie, N. O. (2009). Peer group counselling and
school influence on adolescents’ self-concept. Journal of Instruc-
tional Psychology, 36, 3–12. doi:10.1007/BF01544800.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human
Relations, 7, 117–140. doi:10.1177/001872675400700202.
Flicek, K., & Urbas, B. (2003). Coed versus single-sex residence halls:
Correlates of disordered eating behavior. UW-L Journal of Un-
dergraduate research, 6, 1–6.
Franzoi, S. L., & Klaiber, J. R. (2007). Body use and reference group
impact: With whom do we compare our bodies? Sex Roles, 56,
205–214. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9162-4.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T.-A. (1997). Objectification theory:
Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental
health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x.
Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T., 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, 269–284. doi:10.1037/
h0090332.
Glauert, R., Rhodes, G., Byrne, S., Fink, B., & Grammer, K. (2009).
Body dissatisfaction and the effects of perceptual exposure on
body norms and ideals. International Journal of Eating Disor-
ders, 42, 443–452. doi:10.1002/eat.v42:510.1002/eat.20640.
Gluck, M. E., & Geliebter, A. (2002). Racial/ethnic differences in body
image and eating behaviors. Eating Behaviors, 3, 143–151.
doi:10.1016/S1471-0153(01)00052-6.
Grabe, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2006). Ethnicity and body dissatisfaction
among women in the United States: A meta-analysis. Psycholog-
ical Bulletin, 132, 622–640. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.4.622.
Grabe, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2009). Body objectification, MTV, and
psychological outcomes among female adolescents. Journal of
Sex Roles (2013) 69:469–479
Applied Social Psychology, 39, 2840–2858. doi:10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2009.00552.x.
Grogan, S., Williams, Z., & Conner, M. (1996). The effects of viewing
same-gender photographic models on body-esteem. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 20, 569–575. doi:10.1111/j.1471-
6402.1996.tb00322.x.
Halpern, D. F., Eliot, L., Bigler, R. S., Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L. D.,
Hyde, J., & Martin, C. L. (2011). The pseudoscience of single-sex
s c h o o l i n g . S c i e n c e , 3 3 3 , 1 7 0 6 – 1 7 0 7 . d o i : 1 0 . 11 2 6 /
science.1205031.
Harker, R. (2000). Achievement, gender and the single-sex/coed de-
bate. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21, 203–218.
doi:10.1080/713655349.
Harriger, J., Calogero, R., Witherington, D., & Smith, J. (2010). Body
size stereotyping and internalization of the thin ideal in preschool
girls. Sex Roles, 63, 609–620. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9868-1.
Heinberg, L. J., & Thompson, J. K. (1992). Social comparison:
Gender, target importance ratings, and relation to body image
disturbance. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7,
335–344.
Hutchinson, D. M., & Rapee, R. M. (2007). Do friends share similar
body image and eating problems? The role of social networks and
peer influences in early adolescence. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 45, 1557–1577. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2006.11.007.
Jackson, T., & Chen, H. (2010). Sociocultural experiences of bulimic
and non-bulimic adolescents in a school-based chinese sample.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 69–76. doi:10.1007/
s10802-009-9350-0.
Jones, D. C. (2001). Social comparison and body image: Attractiveness
comparisons to models and peers among adolescent girls and
boys. Sex Roles, 45, 645–664. doi:10.1177/0743558403258847.
Kessels, U., & Hannover, B. (2008). When being a girl matters less:
Accessibility of gender-related self-knowledge in single-sex and
coeducational classes and its impact on students’ physics-related
self-concept of ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
78, 273–289. doi:10.1348/000709907X215938.
Lam, T. H., Lee, S. W., Fung, S., Ho, S. Y., Lee, P. W. H., & Stewart, S.
M. (2009). Sociocultural influences on body dissatisfaction and
dieting in Hong Kong girls. European Eating Disorders Review,
17, 152–160. doi:10.1002/erv.900.
Lavine, H., Sweeney, D., & Wagner, S. (1999). Depicting women as
sex objects in television advertising: Effects on body dissatisfac-
tion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1049–1058.
doi:10.1177/01461672992511012.
Lee, V. E., & Bryk, A. S. (1989). Effects of single-sex schools:
Response to Marsh. Journal of Education and Psychology, 81,
647–650. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.4.647.
Marsh, H. W. (1989). Effects of attending single-sex and coeducational
high schools on achievement, attitudes, behaviors, and sex differ-
ences. Journal of Education and Psychology, 81, 70–85.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.1.70.
Mensinger, J. (2001). Conflicting gender role prescriptions and disor-
dered eating in single-sex and coeducational school environments.
Gender and Education, 13, 417–429. doi:10.1080/
09540250120081760.
Morrison, T. G., Kalin, R., & Morrison, M. A. (2004). Body-image
evaluation and body-image investment among adolescents: A test
of sociocultural and social comparison theories. Adolescence, 39,
571–572.
Myers, T. A., & Crowther, J. H. (2009). Social comparison as a
predictor of body dissatisfaction: A meta-analytic review. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 118, 683–698. doi:10.1037/a0016763.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Digest of education
statistics: 2010. U.S. Department of Education Institute of Edu-
cation Sciences. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/di-
gest/d10/
Sex Roles (2013) 69:469–479
Neighbors, L. A., & Sobal, J. (2007). Prevalence and magnitude of
body weight and shape dissatisfaction among university students.
Eating Behaviors, 8, 429–439. doi:10.1016/j.eatbeh.2007.03.003.
Noll, S. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). A mediational model linking
self-objectification, body shame, and disordered eating. Psychol-
ogy of Women Quarterly, 22, 623–636. doi:10.1111/j.1471-
6402.1998.tb00181.x.
Quinn, D. M., Kallen, R. W., & Cathey, C. (2006). Body on my mind:
The lingering effect of state self-objectification. Sex Roles, 55,
869–874. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9140-x.
Rodgers, R. F., Faure, K., & Chabrol, H. (2009). Gender differ-
ences in parental influences on adolescent body dissatisfac-
tion and disordered eating. Sex Roles, 61, 837–849.
doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9690-9.
Sabik, N. J., Cole, E. R., & Ward, L. M. (2010). Are all minority
women equally buffered from negative body image? Intra-ethnic
moderators of the buffering hypothesis. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 34, 139–151. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01557.x.
Sanchez, D. T., & Crocker, J. (2005). How investment in gender ideals
affects well-being: The role of external contingencies of self-
worth. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 63–77. doi:10.1111/
j.1471-6402.2005.00169.x.
Sanftner, J. L., Ryan, W. J., & Pierce, P. (2009). Application of a
relational model to understanding body image in college women
and men. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 23, 262–
280. doi:10.1080/87568220903167182.
Schutz, H. K., Paxton, S. J., & Wertheim, E. H. (2002). Investigation of
body comparison among adolescent girls. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 32, 1906–1937. doi:10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2002.tb00264.x.
Shomaker, L. B., & Furman, W. (2007). Same-sex peers’ influ-
ence on young women’s body image: An experimental
manipulation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
26. doi:871-895.10.1521/jscp.2007.26.8.871.
Stunkard, A. J., Sorensen, T., & Shulsinger, F. (1983). Use of the
Danish adoption register for the study of obesity and thinness.
In S. Kety (Ed.), The genetics of neurological and psychiatric
disorders (pp. 115–120). New York: Raven.
Sullivan, A., Joshi, H., & Leonard, D. (2010). Single-sex schooling
and academic attainment at school and through the lifecourse.
American Education Research Journal, 47, 6–36. doi:10.3102/
0002831209350106.
Thompson, J. K., Heinberg, L. J., & Tantleff, S. (1991). The physical
appearance comparison scale (PACS). Behavior Therapy, 14, 174.
Tiggemann, M. (2001). Effect of gender composition of school on
body concerns in adolescent women. International Journal of
Eating Disorders, 29, 239–243. doi:10.1002/1098-108X
(200103)29:2<239::AID-EAT1015>3.0.C O;2-A.
479
Tiggemann, M., & Miller, J. (2010). The Internet and adolescent girls’
weight satisfaction and drive for thinness. Sex Roles, 63, 79–90.
doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9789-z.
Tiggemann, M., & Polivy, J. (2010). Upward and downward: Social
comparison processing of thin idealized media images. Psychol-
ogy of Women Quarterly, 34, 356–364. doi:10.1111/j.1471-
6402.2010.01581.x.
Trampe, D., Stapel, D. A., & Siero, F. W. (2007). On models and vases:
Body dissatisfaction and proneness to social comparison effects.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 106–118.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.106.
Tsiantas, G., & King, R. M. (2001). Similarities in body image in
sisters: The role of sociocultural internalization and social com-
parison. Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment & Preven-
tion, 9, 141–158. doi:10.1080/10640260127717.
Want, S. C., Vickers, K., & Amos, J. (2009). The influence of televi-
sion programs on appearance satisfaction: Making and mitigating
social comparisons to “Friends”. Sex Roles, 60, 642–655.
doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9563-7.
Wardle, J., Haase, A. M., & Steptoe, A. (2006). Body image and
weight control in young adults: International comparisons in
university students from 22 countries. International Journal of
Obesity, 30, 644–651. doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0803050.
Werner, C. M., Sansone, C., & Brown, B. B. (2008). Guided group
discussion and attitude change: The roles of normative and infor-
mational influence. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28,
27–41. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.002.
Wertheim, E. H., Paxton, S. J., Schutz, H. K., & Muir, S. L.
(1997). Why do adolescent girls watch their weight? An
interview study examining sociocultural pressures to be thin.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 42, 345–355. doi:10.1016/
S0022-3999(96)00368-6.
Wildes, J., Emery, R., & Simons, A. (2001). The roles of ethnicity and
culture in the development of eating disturbance and body dissat-
isfaction: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review,
21, 521–551. doi:10.1016/S0272-7358(99)00071-9.
Williams, L. K., Ricciardelli, L. A., McCabe, M. P., Waqa, G. G., &
Bavadra, K. (2006). Body image attitudes and concerns among
indigenous Fijian and European Australian adolescent girls. Body
Image, 3, 275–287. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2006.06.001.
Williamson, D. A., Davis, C. J., Bennett, S. M., Goreczny, A. J., &
Gleaves, D. H. (1989). Development of a simple procedure for
assessing body image disturbances. Behavioral Assessment, 11,
433–446.
Young, D. J., & Fraser, B. J. (1990). Science achievement of girls in
single-sex and co-educational schools. Research in Science &
Te c h n o l o g i c a l E d u c a t i o n , 8 , 5 – 2 0 . d o i : 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 /
0263514900080102.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.