Psychometric Evaluation of the Broad Conceptualization of Beauty Scale

Home , Beauty

Body Image 17 (2016) 67–81

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Body Image

journa l homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bodyimage

Perceiving beauty in all women: Psychometric evaluation of the Broad

Conceptualization of Beauty Scale

a,∗ b

Tracy L. Tylka , Amy C. Iannantuono

Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus and Marion Campuses, Marion, OH, United States

Central Ohio Mental Health Center, Delaware, OH, United States

a r a

t i b s

c t

l e i n f o r a c t

Article history: Women’s ability to broadly conceptualize beauty (i.e., perceive many looks, appearances, body

Received 11 August 2015

sizes/shapes, and inner characteristics as beautiful) has been identiﬁed as a facet of positive body image

Received in revised form 12 February 2016

in qualitative research. A scale is needed to be able to assess this construct within quantitative research.

Accepted 17 February 2016

Therefore, we developed the Broad Conceptualization of Beauty Scale (BCBS), which measures the extent

women deﬁne female beauty widely within external and internal characteristics, and examined its

Keywords:

psychometric properties among four community samples totaling 1086 women. Exploratory and con-

Broad conceptualization of beauty

ﬁrmatory factor analyses revealed a unidimensional structure with nine items. The internal consistency,

Scale development

test–retest reliability, and construct (convergent, discriminant, and incremental) validity of its scores

Positive body image

Psychometrics were upheld. Researchers and clinicians can use the BCBS alone to assess women’s perceptions of female

Community women beauty, or they can use the BCBS alongside women’s perceptions of self-beauty to more comprehensively

explore women’s ability to broadly conceptualize beauty for others and themselves.

Introduction accepting its unique characteristics, respecting it by taking care of

its needs, and believing that it is beautiful and valuable despite

Within the last decade, research on positive body image has any perceived inconsistency with media-promoted appearance

escalated, which has resulted in knowledge being amassed about ideals (Avalos, Tylka, & Wood-Barcalow, 2005; Tylka & Wood-

its various components and expressions (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, Barcalow, 2015a). Body appreciation, as assessed via both the

2015c). Yet, much remains to be gleaned from positive body image original Body Appreciation Scale (BAS; Avalos et al., 2005) and

inquiry, as this nascent area remains diminutive in comparison the updated Body Appreciation Scale-2 (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow,

to the rich history of negative body image scholarship. Contin- 2015b), is connected to well-being. More speciﬁcally, body appre-

ued inquiry into positive body image is critical—it complements ciation has evidenced strong positive relationships with indices

the literature on negative body image by moving beyond lowering of adjustment such as self-compassion, self-esteem, life satis-

body dissatisfaction and toward appreciating, respecting, celebrat- faction, positive affect, intuitive eating, and sexual satisfaction,

ing, and honoring the body (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b). This as well as strong inverse relationships with indices of distress

knowledge then can be used to enhance programs and interven- such as negative affect, thin-ideal internalization, disordered eat-

tions that aim to lower body image disturbance, eating disorder ing, maladaptive perfectionism, body comparison, and cosmetic

symptoms, and body-related stigma (Cook-Cottone, 2015; Piran, surgery endorsement (Andrew, Tiggemann, & Clark, 2015; Avalos

2015; Tylka et al., 2014). Indeed, studying positive body image is et al., 2005; Homan & Tylka, 2015; Iannantuono & Tylka, 2012;

“essential to the future of the ﬁeld” (Smolak & Cash, 2011, p. 472). Satinsky, Reece, Dennis, Sanders, & Bardzell, 2012; Swami et al.,

The construct that has been at the forefront of positive body 2011; Tylka & Kroon Van Diest, 2013; Tylka & Wood-Barcalow,

image research is body appreciation (Tiggemann, 2015), which has 2015b; Wasylkiw, MacKinnon, & MacLellan, 2012). Body appre-

been described as holding favorable opinions toward one’s body, ciation also has been shown to buffer the deleterious effects of

viewing images of thin models. Halliwell (2013) found that women

high in body appreciation did not place more importance on their

appearance concerns after viewing images of thin models, whereas

∗

Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Ohio State University,

women low in body appreciation placed more importance on their

1465 Mt. Vernon Avenue, Marion, OH 43302, United States. Tel.: +1 740 725 6384;

appearance concerns after viewing these images. This buffering

fax: +1 614 292 5817.

effect was particularly pronounced for women high in thin-ideal

E-mail address: [email protected] (T.L. Tylka).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.02.005

68 T.L. Tylka, A.C. Iannantuono / Body Image 17 (2016) 67–81

internalization, suggesting that high levels of body appreciation and believed that beauty emerges in internal characteristics (e.g.,

may offset harm associated with both thin-ideal internalization and conﬁdent but not conceited, self-acceptance), is reﬂected in a mul-

thin-ideal media exposure. titude of body sizes and shapes, and is manifested in personal style

Continuing research on body appreciation is critical, as much (Parker et al., 1995, p. 108). Adolescent Aboriginal girls from Canada

has yet to be learned about how it is expressed among vari- viewed beauty as originating from the inside and reﬂected outward

ous social identities and special populations (Tiggemann, 2015) in cultural practices, self-care, choice of style, and grooming, rather

and how it can be used within prevention and treatment of eat- than conforming to a certain body type (McHugh et al., 2014). These

ing disorders (Cook-Cottone, 2015; Piran, 2015). However, for girls engaged in pow-wow dance, which facilitated their awareness

these same reasons, scholars also need to begin investigating of the beauty within themselves, nature, and their culture.

additional components and expressions of positive body image Third, such a measure may be used to develop interventions

that extend past body appreciation as deﬁned by Avalos et al. to help prevent and/or alleviate internalization of media appear-

(2005) and Tylka and Wood-Barcalow (2015a). In fact, additional ance ideals (i.e., the adoption of such ideals as one’s own personal

facets of positive body image have been identiﬁed within qualita- standard; Heinberg, Thompson, & Stormer, 1995). In particular,

tive studies of adolescents (Frisén & Holmqvist, 2010; Holmqvist thin-ideal internalization has been identiﬁed as a strong predictor

& Frisén, 2012; McHugh, Coppola, & Sabiston, 2014) and young of body image disturbance and eating disorder symptoms among

adult women (Wood-Barcalow, Tylka, & Augustus-Horvath, 2010). adolescent girls in prospective research (Stice, 2002; Thompson

These additional facets include broadly conceptualizing beauty, & Stice, 2001), and the main target variable for dissonance-based

adaptive appearance investment, inner positivity inﬂuencing outer eating disorder secondary prevention programs (Stice, Rohde, &

demeanor, and ﬁltering information in a body-protective man- Shaw, 2013). Broadly conceptualizing beauty would be incompat-

ner (for reviews, see Tylka, 2011, 2012; Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, ible with internalizing media appearance ideals. For example, an

2015c). Measuring these facets is necessary to comprehensively already formed broad conceptualization of beauty theoretically

understand the positive body image construct (Webb, Wood- should prevent a girl or woman from endorsing thinness as a per-

Barcalow, & Tylka, 2015). sonal standard. If a girl or woman has already internalized the thin

In the present study, we aimed to develop a scale to assess ideal, increasing her broad conceptualization of beauty may cre-

one of these facets: broadly conceptualizing beauty. According to ate dissonance, which may lessen her adherence to thinness as a

Tylka and Wood-Barcalow (2015c), individuals who broadly con- personal standard. A measure of broad conceptualization of beauty

ceptualize beauty perceive a wide range of physical appearances could be used to examine these assertions. Indeed, scholars have

as beautiful, whether these appearances are largely unchangeable called for the increased use of positive body image measures in

(e.g., body shape, weight) or more easily modiﬁable (e.g., personal eating disorder prevention and treatment (Cook-Cottone, 2015;

style). Those who broadly conceptualize beauty also tend to draw Halliwell, Jarman, McNamara, Risdon, & Jankowski, 2015; Piran,

from inner characteristics, such as conﬁdence and self-acceptance, 2015).

when deﬁning beauty. Further, broadly conceptualizing beauty is To date, there is no existing comprehensive measure of broadly

not limited to noticing beauty in others but also noticing beauty in conceptualizing beauty. Although Item 10 of the BAS-2 assesses

their own features that may not align with sociocultural appearance perceptions of self-beauty, i.e., “I feel like I am beautiful even if I

ideals. am different from media images of attractive people (e.g., mod-

There is an immediate need for such a measure. First, broad els, actresses/actors),” the BAS-2 does not comprehensively assess

conceptualization of beauty has been identiﬁed as a component of this construct, such as seeing beauty in others. Being able to see

positive body image across multiple qualitative studies (see Bailey, beauty within others and the self has been noted as important to

Gammage, van Ingen, & Ditor, 2015; Frisén & Holmqvist, 2010; positive body image for girls and women in particular (Tylka &

Holmqvist & Frisén, 2012; McHugh et al., 2014; Parker et al., 1995; Wood-Barcalow, 2015c). Thus, in two studies, we developed the

Wood-Barcalow et al., 2010). For instance, adolescents with a pos- Broad Conceptualization of Beauty Scale (BCBS), evaluated its factor

itive body image from Sweden mentioned that a diversity of body structure, and examined the reliability and validity of its scores.

sizes can be beautiful and that inner personality characteristics,

such as happiness, shape their perceptions of (especially) girls’ and

Study 1

women’s beauty (Holmqvist & Frisén, 2012). The authors concluded

that positive body image can be enhanced by providing adoles-

Study 1 had ﬁve stages. First, we developed potential BCBS

cents with “alternative ways of thinking about appearance ideals,

items that tap into the broad conceptualization of beauty con-

beauty, and attractiveness” (Holmqvist & Frisén, 2012, p. 393). Col-

struct. Second, we sought external review of these items for content

lege women from the U.S. emphasized that beauty can be deﬁned

coverage and clarity, and modiﬁed the items accordingly. Third,

and expressed in an indeﬁnite number of ways, and thus should

using data garnered from three independent samples of online

not be compared among individuals (Wood-Barcalow et al., 2010).

community women, we examined the factor structure of the BCBS

Canadian adults with spinal cord injuries who espoused a positive

using exploratory and conﬁrmatory factor analyses. Fourth, we

body image emphasized that all body shapes and sizes are beautiful

estimated the internal consistency, construct (i.e., convergent, dis-

and that beauty encompasses external and internal characteristics

criminant, and incremental) validity, and criterion-related validity

that are ignored by media (Bailey et al., 2015).

of the BCBS’s scores. Fifth, we estimated the test–retest reliability

Second, such a measure would honor conceptualizations of

of the BCBS’s scores among women who completed the BCBS twice,

beauty endorsed by non-White cultures, whose appearances tend

three weeks apart.

to be marginalized, ignored, belittled, or pathologized when com-

pared to White standards of beauty. In their mixed-methods study

of body image, Parker et al. (1995) found that African American Development of the BCBS Items and Expert Review

adolescent girls were more satisﬁed with their body shape than

White adolescent girls—the authors attributed this difference to We generated 24 items that assessed a broad deﬁnition of

African American girls’ ﬂexibility when conceptualizing beauty. physical or external beauty or contributions of internal person-

While White girls largely equated beauty with thinness, height ality characteristics to perceptions of beauty. We also generated

(i.e., tall), and hair type (i.e., long, blonde), African American girls eight items that assessed a broad conceptualization of self-beauty.

emphasized that beauty is making “what you’ve got work for you” Five scholars, who have published extensively in the areas of

T.L. Tylka, A.C. Iannantuono / Body Image 17 (2016) 67–81 69

positive body image and/or eating disorder prevention, reviewed women appreciate their own bodies, and body appreciation and

the items for content and construct comprehensiveness; one con- thin-ideal internalization beyond the extent women express anti-

tent expert shared the measure (after seeking our permission) with fat attitudes. If supported these ﬁndings would uphold incremental

his graduate seminar for a consultation exercise. Content experts validity, suggesting that the BCBS offers something novel to the

recommended deleting the self-beauty items (they perceived that measurement of body image.

the self-beauty construct overlapped with body appreciation), and Sixth, we hypothesized that BCBS scores would reveal negligi-

administering the BCBS to women only, for two reasons: (a) quali- ble correlations (i.e., rs < .20; Cohen, 1992; Walsh & Betz, 2001)

tative research participants tended to broadly conceptualize beauty with impression management (H6a), narcissism (i.e., a grandiose

only in reference to girls/women, and (b) some men may be reluc- sense of self, entitlement, and demands for admiration, H6b), and

tant to evaluate other men as beautiful because they may perceive body mass index (BMI; H6c), upholding discriminant validity. A

it as homoerotic. Content experts also suggested minor revisions concern with the BCBS might be that participants want to project

to several items for clarity, adding items for content coverage, and that they have a broad conceptualization of beauty in order to be

deleting items that were redundant or tangential to the construct politically correct and/or kind, and thus provide a socially desir-

of interest. able response to the BCBS items. Another concern is that low

After considering this feedback, we incorporated the recom- BCBS scores might be heavily inﬂuenced by narcissism. That is,

mended modiﬁcations; the revised list was 20 items. Two of the women high on narcissism may be less able to acknowledge beauty

previous content experts reexamined the items, agreed that they in a wide range of other women because they hold characteris-

were clear and comprehensive of external and internal beauty. We tics that make themselves beautiful as superior. We anticipated

then recruited three upper-level psychology undergraduate female positive yet small correlations between BCBS scores and BMI, as

students in the ﬁrst author’s research lab to provide feedback women who are heavier may experience a slight tendency to

from a “participant’s perspective.” They recommended deleting be more accepting of various body types than thin women who

four items: one within a pair of items they viewed as redundant, may beneﬁt from thin privilege (and thus perceive thinness as

and three that contained terms that had varied interpretations ideal).

(i.e., “inner traits,” “attitude,” and “personality”). Thus, 16 items Seventh, we predicted negative associations between BCBS

remained, and are presented in Table 1. These items were admin- scores and body surveillance, social comparison, and pro-cosmetic

istered to all three validation samples. surgery attitudes, which would uphold the BCBS’s criterion-related

(concurrent) validity (H7). Broadly conceptualizing beauty should

Hypotheses (H) be related to lower engagement and endorsement of negative

body image-related behaviors, such as habitually monitoring one’s

First, we thought that the BCBS items may adhere to a bidimen- appearance, comparing one’s appearance-related behaviors (body,

sional solution: one factor representing a broad conceptualization exercise behaviors, and eating habits) to others, and considering

of external or physical beauty, and the second incorporating inter- cosmetic surgery as an option for oneself.

nal characteristics to conceptualize beauty (H1a). We anticipated Last, BCBS scores can be used to calculate a variable repre-

that these factors, should they emerge, would be correlated and senting an even broader conceptualization of beauty—one that

would load onto a higher-order factor (H1b). Second, we predicted extends to others and the self. Speciﬁcally, we multiplied partici-

that the BCBS items would be internally consistent (H2). Third, pants’ broad conceptualization of other women’s beauty (BCBS total

we predicted that the BCBS scores would be stable over a 3-week score) with perceptions of self-beauty (BAS-2 Item 10, “I feel like

period, which would support test–retest reliability (H3). I am beautiful, even if I am different from media images of attrac-

Fourth, we expected that BCBS scores would demonstrate valid- tive people”)—thus, weighing both equally. We hypothesized that

ity. More speciﬁcally, we hypothesized the BCBS to be inversely this variable, hereafter referred to as “BCB (others and self),” would

related to anti-fat attitudes to a strong degree (i.e., rs around |.50| be positively related to self-compassion, and inversely related to

or higher; Cohen, 1992), as both measures are assessing participant anti-fat attitudes, thin-ideal internalization, body surveillance, pro-

attitudes about the physical appearance of others (H4a). Because cosmetic surgery attitudes, and social comparison (H8a). We also

attitudes toward others’ bodies may not generalize to the self, we predicted that BCB (others and self) would account for variance

predicted that BCBS scores would be more moderately related (i.e., in these well-being indices above and beyond the variance con-

rs around |.20|–|.40|; Cohen, 1992) to measures of participants’ atti- tributed by body appreciation (H8b). If supported, this ﬁnding

tudes toward their own bodies: body appreciation in a positive would suggest that this variable is a holistic conceptualization of

direction and endorsement of thin ideal media images as a personal broad conceptualization of beauty—extending beyond others to the

standard (i.e., thin-ideal internalization) in an inverse direction self—and a measure of positive body image that is not redundant

(H4b). That is, participants may conceptualize a wide range of with body appreciation.

beauty in others, but may not extend this conceptualization toward

their own bodies. We hypothesized that BCBS scores would be posi- Method

tively associated with self-compassion (H4c). Indeed, seeing beauty

in all women may facilitate compassion toward themselves—a sort Participants and procedure. After receiving IRB approval from

of positive common humanity (i.e., if all women are beautiful, then a large Midwestern U.S. university, we recruited women from

I have beauty as well). Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), an online website whereby par-

Fifth, we expected that the BCBS would be (a) inversely related ticipants receive monetary compensation for completing surveys

to anti-fat attitudes after excluding its shared variance with or other tasks (i.e., “hits”). When compared to data gathered from

thin-ideal internalization (H5a), (b) positively associated with college student samples, data gathered from MTurk have been

self-compassion after excluding its shared variance with body shown to be more diverse and nationally representative, but just

appreciation (H5b), and (c) positively linked to body apprecia- as psychometrically sound (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011).

tion and thin-ideal internalization after controlling for anti-fat Moreover, researchers have shown that MTurk is a reliable and

attitudes (H5c). Conceptualizing women’s beauty more broadly valid method for data collection on body image (Gardner, Brown,

should be associated with: lower anti-fat attitudes beyond the & Boice, 2012).

extent participants have internalized the thin ideal (and hold their U.S. citizens who had completed at least 100 hits and had their

own bodies to this standard), self-compassion beyond the extent previous hits approved at least 98% of the time could view our

70 T.L. Tylka, A.C. Iannantuono / Body Image 17 (2016) 67–81

Table 1

Broad Conceptualization of Beauty Scale (BCBS) standardized item-factor loadings: Studies 1 (Samples A–C) and 2.

Study 1 Study 2

Sample A Sample B Sample C

Factor analysis type Exploratory Exploratory Conﬁrmatory Conﬁrmatory

BCBS version 16-Item 9-Item 16-Item 9-Item 9-Item 9-Item

BCBS items

1. Even if a physical feature is not considered .60 .61 .59 .59 .76 .68

attractive by others or by society, I think that it

can be beautiful.

2. A woman’s conﬁdence level can change my .56 .52 .52 .54 .62 .58

perception of her physical beauty.

3. I think that a wide variety of body shapes are .73 .80 .69 .77 .88 .84

beautiful for women.

4. A woman’s intelligence can change my perception .52 .54

of her physical beauty.

5. I think that thin women are more beautiful .56 .58 .61 .61 .59 .53

than women who have other body types. (reverse)

6. A woman’s soul or inner spirit can change my .59 .52 .68 .60 .70 .56

perception of her physical beauty.

7. I deﬁne a woman’s beauty differently than how .55 .58 .59 .60 .66 .58

it is portrayed in the media.

8. A woman’s acceptance of herself can change my .64 .58 .66 .61 .73 .71

perception of her physical beauty.

9. I appreciate a wide range of different looks as .77 .81 .61 .63 .86 .83

beautiful.

10. A woman’s sense of humor can change my .57 .62

perception of her physical beauty.

11. A woman’s kindness does not change my .52 .53

perception of her physical beauty. (reverse)

12. I think that women of all body sizes can be .74 .76 .64 .67 .77 .79

beautiful.

13. I think that women whose appearance has been .46 .47

altered dramatically (e.g., amputations, burns) can be

just as beautiful as women without these alterations.

14. I think that a woman is more beautiful when she .47 .45

is 20 than when she is 50. (reverse)

15. I think that the most beautiful women appear in .44 .46

the media, such as models and actresses. (reverse)

16. I think that a wide variety of skin colorings are .45 .42

beautiful for women.

Note: For Study 1 Sample A, N = 321. For Study 1 Sample B, N = 164. For Study 1 Sample C, N = 343. For Study 2, N = 258. Items that are bolded were retained in the ﬁnal version

of the BCBS.

study on the MTurk website, which described our study as “an this time frame (31%, n = 92) were awarded $1.00 and matched

investigation of women’s attitudes toward attractiveness and per- to their prior BCBS item scores using their MTurk identiﬁcation

sonality.” Interested participants signed up for the study on the code.

MTurk website and were directed to a link on SurveyMonkey to We screened for duplicate data (within each sample and across

complete the questionnaire. They reported their sex immediately Samples A–C) and erroneous data (within each sample). Women

after providing consent; those who reported male were chan- were excluded if they completed the questionnaire more than once,

neled to a survey on men’s body image of approximately equal provided data for more than one sample, failed at least one of three

length. embedded validity questions (e.g., “Answer seldom to this item so

We reduced the length of the questionnaire to prevent partici- we know you are paying attention”) within the battery, terminated

pant boredom. Speciﬁcally, we channeled participants into one of early, or had signiﬁcant missing data (i.e., ≥20% of items miss-

three groups (Samples A, B, and C), ensuring that each group had a ing on a given questionnaire). Approximately 8% of each sample

sufﬁcient number of participants to conduct the planned analyses. was excluded for these reasons, leaving 321 for Sample A, 164 for

Each group received the BCBS, BAS-2, and sample-speciﬁc measures Sample B, and 343 for Sample C.

(see Table 2 for a list of measures administered to each sample). The For ease of comparison, demographic characteristics for Sam-

total number of items asked within the questionnaire was similar ples A–C are provided in Table 2. The samples were similar. Most

across groups, with each group taking approximately 10–13 min

to complete the questionnaire. Participants each received $1.00 as remuneration.

Participants had the option of providing their MTurk identiﬁ- Scholars have asserted that factor analysis is best conducted with 10–20 par-

ticipants per estimated parameter (Kline, 2010). Therefore, we channeled more

cation code to participate in “a 3-week follow-up study on body

participants into Sample A because it was the ﬁrst exploratory factor analysis of

attitudes” for an additional $1.00. They were not informed that they

the 16 BCBS items; the ﬁnal sample size of Sample A represented approximately 20

would be taking the BCBS again or that the purpose of the study was

participants per estimated parameter, which would permit a reliable preliminary

to gauge the stability of the BCBS. Twenty days after completing exploration of its factor structure. Fewer participants were channeled into Sample

B to ensure that the factor structure found in Sample A could be documented with a

the ﬁrst administration, Samples A, B, and C participants who pro-

smaller sample, which represented 10 participants per estimated parameter. Given

vided their MTurk identiﬁcation code (36%, n = 298) were contacted

that parameters are doubled in conﬁrmatory factor analysis, we channeled more

with the informed consent and survey link and asked to complete

participants into Sample C; the ﬁnal sample size represented >10 participants per

the survey within three days. Participants who responded within estimated parameter.

T.L. Tylka, A.C. Iannantuono / Body Image 17 (2016) 67–81 71

Table 2

Questionnaire batteries and demographic characteristics of Study 1 (Samples A–C, test–retest) and Study 2.

Study 1 Study 2

Sample A Sample B Sample C Test-retest

Initial N 350 180 370 92 275

Final N 321 164 343 92 258

U.S. states represented N 47 38 42 35 46

Measures 16-Item BCBS 16-Item BCBS 16-Item BCBS 16-Item BCBS 9-Item BCBS

BAS-2 BAS-2 BAS-2 BAS-2

SATAQ-R Internalization BIDR-6 IM OBCS Body Surveillance Body Image Quality of Life Inventory

AFAS NPI-16 BEECOM BASES AP and HP

SCS-Short Form ACSS

Age

M (SD) 34.50 (11.80) 35.55 (11.07) 35.52 (12.26) 32.86 (9.34) 35.43 (11.29)

Age range 18–68 20–65 18–76 20–67 19–83

18–25 n (%) 73 (22.8%) 33 (20.0%) 83 (23.9%) 11 (11.9%) 49 (19.0%)

26–35 n (%) 136 (42.3%) 67 (41.0%) 130 (37.8%) 59 (65.1%) 106 (41.4%)

36–45 n (%) 53 (16.4%) 28 (16.9%) 55 (16.0%) 12 (13.2%) 54 (20.9%)

46–55 n (%) 32 (9.8%) 22 (13.2%) 44 (13.0%) 6 (6.6%) 32 (12.4%)

56–68 n (%) 27 (8.1%) 12 (7.2%) 31 (9.3%) 4 (4.4%) 17 (6.8%)

Ethnicity

African American n (%) 27 (8.4%) 11 (6.7%) 23 (6.7%) 4 (4.3%) 17 (6.6%)

White n (%) 252 (78.5%) 132 (80.5%) 266 (77.6%) 79 (85.9%) 206 (79.8%)

Latina n (%) 11 (3.4%) 4 (2.4%) 14 (4.1%) 2 (2.2%) 7 (2.7%)

Asian American n (%) 16 (5.0%) 4 (2.4%) 23 (6.7%) 1 (1.1%) 11 (4.3%)

Native American n (%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (1.2%) 1 (0.3%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.4%)

Multiracial n (%) 11 (3.4%) 8 (4.9%) 15 (4.4%) 4 (4.3%) 16 (6.2%)

“Other” n (%) 4 (0.2%) 3 (1.8%) 1 (0.3%) 2 (2.2%) 0 (0.0%)

Body mass index

M (SD) 26.45 (7.00) 27.00 (8.01) 25.43 (6.94) 25.57 (7.39) 26.98 (7.50)

Range 15.50–53.26 14.23–59.51 14.14–53.14 17.71–49.59 14.98–60.73

Underweight (<18.5) 10 (3.1%) 9 (5.5%) 26 (7.6%) 6 (3.3%) 10 (3.9%)

Average (18.5–24.9) 156 (48.6%) 72 (43.9%) 179 (52.2%) 52 (56.6%) 120 (46.5%)

Overweight (25.0–29.9) 77 (24.0%) 36 (22.0%) 61 (17.8%) 8 (8.7%) 57 (22.1%)

≥

Obese ( 30.0) 77 (24.0%) 44 (26.8%) 73 (21.3%) 26 (28.1%) 69 (26.7%)

Highest education level

≤12 grade n (%) 3 (0.9%) 1 (0.6%) 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.4%)

H.S. diploma or GED n (%) 35 (10.9%) 21 (12.8%) 53 (15.5%) 21 (22.8%) 34 (13.2%)

Some college n (%) 68 (21.2%) 32 (19.5%) 67 (19.5%) 18 (19.6%) 63 (24.3%)

Associates degree n (%) 34 (10.6%) 25 (15.2%) 50 (14.6%) 12 (13.0%) 34 (13.2%)

Bachelor’s degree n (%) 118 (36.7%) 38 (23.2%) 113 (32.9%) 22 (24.0%) 82 (31.8%)

Some graduate school n (%) 25 (7.8%) 23 (14.0%) 26 (7.6%) 4 (4.3%) 9 (3.5%)

Graduate degree n (%) 38 (11.9%) 21 (12.8%) 33 (9.6%) 14 (15.2%) 35 (13.6%)

Sexual orientation

Lesbian n (%) 6 (1.9%) 6 (3.7%) 10 (2.9%) 2 (2.2%) 7 (2.7%)

Bisexual n (%) 27 (8.4%) 11 (6.7%) 27 (7.9%) 8 (8.6%) 23 (8.9%)

Heterosexual n (%) 288 (89.7%) 145 (88.4%) 305 (88.9%) 82 (89.2%) 227 (88.0%) a

Household income

≤

$30,000 n (%) 118 (36.8%) 41 (25.0%) 98 (28.6%) 32 (34.8%) 91 (35.3%)

$30,001–$60,000 n (%) 118 (36.8%) 71 (43.3%) 136 (39.7%) 38 (41.4%) 85 (33.0%)

$60,001–$80,000 n (%) 42 (13.1%) 23 (14.0%) 44 (12.8%) 6 (6.6%) 35 (13.6%)

$80,001–$100,000 n (%) 24 (7.5%) 13 (7.9%) 28 (8.2%) 6 (6.6%) 22 (8.5%)

$100,001–$150,000 n (%) 10 (3.1%) 13 (7.9%) 23 (6.7%) 8 (8.7%) 20 (7.8%)

≥$150,000 n (%) 6 (1.9%) 1 (0.6%) 11 (3.2%) 2 (2.2%) 3 (1.2%)

Annual household income.

BCBS = Broad Conceptualization of Beauty Scale. BAS-2 = Body Appreciation Scale-2. SATAQ-R = Sociocultural Attitudes Toward Appearance Questionnaire-Revised.

AFAS = Anti-fat Attitudes Scale. SCS-Short Form = 12-item Short Form of the Self-compassion Scale. BIDR-6 IM = Impression Management subscale of the Balanced Inven-

tory of Desirable Responding-6. NPI-16 = 16 item version of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. OBCS Body Surveillance = Surveillance subscale of the Objectiﬁed Body

Consciousness Scale. BEECOM = Body, Eating, and Exercise Comparison Orientation Measure. ACSS = Acceptance of Cosmetic Surgery Scale. BASES AP and HP = Authentic Body

Pride and Hubristic Body Pride subscales of the Body and Appearance Self-Conscious Emotions Scale.

women reported being in their mid-30s, White, and heterosex- strongly disagree (scored as 1), moderately disagree (2), slightly dis-

ual, as well as having an annual household income of less than agree (3), neither agree nor disagree (4), slightly agree (5), moderately

$60,000 and at least a year of higher education. Most U.S. states agree (6), and strongly agree (7). The 16-item BCBS was administered

were represented, with no one geographic area over-represented. to all samples.

Measures. Measures within each sample were counterbal-

Body appreciation. The 10-item BAS-2 (Tylka & Wood-

anced to control for order effects.

Barcalow, 2015b) was used to assess participants’ body appreci-

ation (e.g., “I appreciate the different and unique characteristics

Broad conceptualization of women’s beauty. Participants were of my body”). Items are rated along a 5-point scale ranging

instructed, “How do YOU deﬁne women’s beauty? Please indicate from never (scored as 1) to always (scored as 5) and aver-

the extent to which you agree with each statement. We are only aged, with higher scores indicating greater body appreciation.

interested in your beliefs, which may or may not be reﬂected by BAS-2 scores have yielded evidence of internal consistency, 3-

others or society.” The response scale provided to participants was week test–retest reliability, and convergent validity (including

72 T.L. Tylka, A.C. Iannantuono / Body Image 17 (2016) 67–81

convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity) in college test–retest reliability, and convergent validity via its relationships

women (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b) and online community to other measures of social desirability (Paulhus, 1994). The BIDR-

women (Tylka, Calogero, & Daníelsdóttir, 2015). The BAS-2 was IM was administered to Sample B (Cronbach’s ˛ = .77).

administered to Samples A (Cronbach’s ˛ = .95), B (˛ = .96), and C

( = .96). Narcissism. The 16-item Narcissistic Personality Inventory

(NPI-16; Ames, Rose, & Anderson, 2006) assesses components of

Anti-fat attitudes. The 5-item Anti-fat Attitudes Scale (AFAS; narcissism such as entitlement, self-absorption, self-admiration,

Morrison & O’Connor, 1999) assesses individuals’ negative atti- and authority. Each item is presented to participants in the form

tudes toward overweight individuals. Its items (e.g., “Fat people are of a pair (e.g., “I am an extraordinary person” vs. “I am much

less sexually attractive than thin people”) are rated along a 5-point like everybody else”), and participants choose the option that

scale ranging from strongly disagree (scored as 1) to strongly agree best represents their self-attitudes. Participants receive a point for

(scored as 5) and averaged, with higher scores indicating greater endorsing the narcissistic option within each pair (e.g., “I am an

weight bias. The internal consistency and construct validity (con- extraordinary person”). Points are then added to create a total score.

current and discriminant) of its scores were upheld among college Among undergraduate and graduate students, scores on the NPI-16

students (Morrison & O’Connor, 1999). The AFAS was administered demonstrated internal consistency, 5-week test–retest reliability,

to Sample A (Cronbach’s ˛ = .73). construct validity, and predictive validity (Ames et al., 2006). The

NPI-16 was administered to Sample B (Cronbach’s ˛ = .77).

Internalization of media appearance ideals. The 8-item

Internalization subscale of the Sociocultural Attitudes Toward Body surveillance. The 8-item Surveillance subscale of the

Appearance Questionnaire-Revised (SATAQ-R; Heinberg et al., Objectiﬁed Body Consciousness Scale (OBCS; McKinley & Hyde,

1995) assesses the extent to which women have internalized the 1996) measures women’s tendency to habitually monitor their

thin media ideal as their personal standard (e.g., “Women who appearance. Its items (e.g., “During the day, I think about how I look

appear in TV shows and movies project the type of appearance that many times”) are rated along a 7-point scale ranging from strongly

I see as my goal”). We opted for this former version, as it speciﬁcally disagree (scored as 1) to strongly agree (scored as 7) and averaged,

assesses women’s endorsement of culturally thin beauty ideals with higher scores reﬂecting greater body surveillance. The internal

presented in the media, rather than the thin/low body fat inter- consistency, 2-week test–retest reliability, and construct validity

nalization subscale of the updated SATAQ-4 (Schaefer et al., 2015), of its scores was upheld among community and college samples

which assesses general desires to be thin without a clear refer- of women (Augustus-Horvath & Tylka, 2009; McKinley & Hyde,

ent. SATAQ-R items are rated along a 5-point scale ranging from 1996). The Surveillance subscale was administered to Sample C

completely disagree (scored as 1) to completely agree (scored as 5) (Cronbach’s ˛ = .92).

and averaged, with higher scores reﬂecting greater internalization.

Internal consistency and construct validity of its scores have been Social comparison. The 18-item Body, Eating, and Exercise

upheld with community women (Bergeron & Senn, 1998; Tylka, Comparison Orientation Measure (BEECOM; Fitzsimmons-Craft,

Russell, & Neal, 2015). The Internalization subscale was adminis- Bardone-Cone, & Harney, 2012) measures the extent women com-

tered to Sample A (Cronbach’s ˛ = .92). pare their appearance, eating habits, and exercise behaviors to their

female peers. Three 6-item subscales are calculated: body com-

Self-compassion. The 12-item Self-Compassion Scale—Short parison (“I pay attention to whether or not I am as thin as, or

Form (SCS-SF; Raes, Pommier, Neff, & Van Gucht, 2011) measures thinner than, my peers”), eating comparison (“I pay attention to

the extent individuals are compassionate toward themselves dur- how much junk food my peers eat compared to me”), and exer-

ing situations that threaten their personal adequacy. Its items (e.g., cise comparison (“When working out around other people, I think

“When I am going through a very hard time, I give myself the car- about how many calories I am burning in comparison to my peers”).

ing and tenderness I need”) are rated along a 5-point scale ranging Items are rated along a 7-point scale ranging from never (scored

from almost never (scored as 1) to almost always (scored as 5) and as 1) to always (scored as 7). Subscale items are averaged, with

averaged, with higher scores reﬂecting greater self-compassion. higher scores indicating greater comparison. The internal consis-

We chose the SCS-SF in lieu of the original 26-item SCS (Neff, tency, 2-week test–retest reliability, and construct validity of its

2003) because of its extremely strong correlation with the SCS scores has been upheld among college women (Fitzsimmons-Craft

(r = .97; Raes et al., 2011), its fewer items minimizes participant et al., 2012). The BEECOM was administered to Sample C (Cron-

fatigue when taking online questionnaires, and its scores demon- bach’s ˛s were .95 for Body Comparison, .94 for Eating Comparison,

strated internal consistency and criterion-related validity among and .95 for Exercise Comparison).

samples of community women (Tylka, Russell, et al., 2015). While

an advantage of using the 26-item SCS would be the calculation of Cosmetic surgery attitudes. The Acceptance of Cosmetic

subscales (Neff, 2003), the factor structure of these subscales has Surgery Scale (ACSS; Henderson-King & Henderson-King, 2005)

been called into question (Costa, Marôco, Pinto-Gouveia, Ferreira, assesses the extent participants endorse cosmetic surgery as a

& Castilho, 2015). The SCS-SF was administered to Sample A (Cron- possible means to please others (e.g., 5-item Social subscale; e.g.,

bach’s ˛ = .90). “I would seriously consider having cosmetic surgery if I thought

my partner would ﬁnd me more attractive”), as a consideration

Impression management. The 20-item Impression Manage- for themselves (5-item Consider subscale; e.g., “I have sometimes

ment subscale of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding-6 thought about having cosmetic surgery”), and as a way people

(BIDR-IM; Paulhus, 1994) assesses the over-reporting of desirable in general can feel better about their appearance (5-item Intrap-

behaviors (“I always obey laws, even if I’m unlikely to get caught”) ersonal subscale; e.g., “If cosmetic surgery can make someone

and under-reporting of undesirable behaviors (e.g., “I sometimes happier with the way they look, then they should try it”). Items

tell lies if I have to”). Items are rated along a 7-point scale ranging are rated along a 7-point scale ranging from strongly disagree

from not at all true (scored as 1) to very true (scored as 7). After items (scored as 1) to strongly agree (scored as 7). Subscale items are

containing undesirable behaviors are reverse scored, all items were averaged, with higher scores reﬂecting greater cosmetic surgery

averaged. Higher scores indicate greater impression management. endorsement. Subscale scores have been found to yield evidence of

Its scores demonstrated evidence of internal consistency, 5-week internal consistency, 3-week test–retest reliability, and construct

T.L. Tylka, A.C. Iannantuono / Body Image 17 (2016) 67–81 73

validity among college and community women (Henderson-King correlated; thus, we chose to remove Items 4, 10, and 11 (same

& Henderson-King, 2005). The ACSS was administered to Sample items removed from Sample A data). A factor analysis on the

C (Cronbach’s ˛s were .93 for Social, .95 for Consider, and .94 for remaining nine items revealed a unidimensional solution, which

Intrapersonal). accounted for 45.62% of the total item variance.

Results Summary of exploratory factor analyses. Hypotheses H1a and

H1b, which suggested that the BCBS would adhere to a bidimen-

Preliminary analyses. Across all samples, the count for indi- sional solution with a higher-order factor, were not supported.

vidual missing data points (i.e., all scale items) was low. There Instead, exploratory factor analyses from two samples suggested

were 39 missing data points (0.23% of scale items) in Sample A, that the BCBS is unidimensional.

104 missing data points (0.96% of scale items) in Sample B, and 61

missing data points (0.25% of scale items) in Sample C. According Conﬁrming the BCBS’s factor structure. Mplus Version 6.12

to Little’s MCAR analyses, these data were missing completely at (Muthén & Muthén,1998–2011) with maximum likelihood esti-

random. Thus, we used multiple imputation (i.e., fully conditional mation was used to conﬁrm the BCBS’s factor structure using

speciﬁcation, calculated via SPSS 22.0) to estimate these missing BCBS items obtained from Sample C. Adequacy of model ﬁt was

values. determined via consensus among the comparative ﬁt index (CFI),

standardized root-mean square residual (SRMR), and root mean

≥

Exploring the BCBS’s factor structure. Exploratory factor anal- square error of approximation (RMSEA). Values around .95 for

≤ ≤

yses (EFA) with Principal Axis Factoring were conducted on the CFI, .08 for SRMR, and .06 for RMSEA indicate a good ﬁt of

BCBS items using SPSS 22.0: the ﬁrst with data from Sample A the model to the data, whereas values between .90 and .94 for

and the second with data from Sample B. We expected that fac- CFI, .09 and .10 for SRMR, and .07 and .10 for RMSEA indicate an

tors, should they emerge, would be related. Therefore, we used the acceptable ﬁt (Hu & Bentler, 1999). We speciﬁed each BCBS item

direct oblimin rotation and speciﬁed the delta to be 0, which allows to load on a general “broad conceptualization of beauty” latent fac-

for moderate factor correlations. We planned to retain an item if it tor. We also acknowledged that several items may share method

had (a) a factor loading of at least .50 on a primary factor, (b) cross- variance due to their similar wording and thus freely estimated

loading(s) less than .30, and (c) inter-item correlations ≤.30 within error covariances between Items 2, 5, and 7, as they had similar

the anti-image correlation matrix, suggesting low item redundancy wording apart from the internal characteristic that differentiated

(Brown, 2006; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). them, and between Items 3, 4, and 9 because they each began with

“I think that.” It is acceptable to estimate error covariances under

Sample A data. The size of the Kaiser–Meyer–Oklin measure of such conditions (Brown, 2006; Kline, 2010). No other error covari-

sampling adequacy (KMO = .904) suggested that the 16 BCBS items ance was estimated. Findings from this conﬁrmatory factor analysis

had adequate common variance for factor analysis, and the sig- (CFA) indicated that each item was signiﬁcant and loaded onto

niﬁcance of Bartlett’s test of sphericity, (120) = 2214.85, p < .001, the latent broad conceptualization of beauty factor (see Table 1),

indicated that the correlation matrix was factorable (Tabachnick & accounting for 66.77% of its variance, and the overall model ﬁt the

Fidell, 2007). Although parallel analysis suggested that two fac- data (CFI = .976, SRMR = .030, RMSEA = .080 [90% CI = .059–.102]),

tors may be interpretable, the structure matrix indicated that most (21) = 67.56, p < .001.

items loaded on both factors, which were highly correlated (i.e.,

.631). After seeking consultation with an expert on factor analysis, Summary of conﬁrmatory factor analysis. This analysis con-

we only retained the ﬁrst factor and estimated the factor load- ﬁrmed the unidimensional factor structure of the BCBS revealed

ings on this 1-factor model (see Table 1 for factor loadings). Four in exploratory factor analyses, lending additional evidence that

items (Items 13, 14, 15, and 16) had factor loadings below .50 on the BCBS is not a bidimensional scale with a higher-order factor.

this factor and were excluded from consideration. The anti-image Thus, data from three samples reveal that H1a and H1b were not

correlation matrix revealed three item pairs that were correlated supported.

(rs > .30) and thus redundant. We extracted one item from each

pair, with item choice being based on the size of the factor loadings BCBS item means. The BCBS item means are included in Table 3

and item clarity. Thus, Items 4, 10, and 11 were removed. A factor for Samples A-C. Participants tended to positively endorse the

analysis on the nine remaining items revealed a unidimensional BCBS items, and thus the distributions of these data were nega-

solution, accounting for 47.48% of the total item variance. tively skewed and leptokurtic. Yet, no item exceeded a skewness

value > |3| and/or kurtosis value > |10|, values that tend to pose

Sample B data. The factor analysis of Sample B’s data largely problems in regression-based analyses.

mirrored ﬁndings from Sample A. The KMO (i.e., .869) and Bartlett’s

test of sphericity, (120) = 1164.95, p < .001, suggested that the Internal consistency. Cronbach’s alphas for BCBS scores were

BCBS items had adequate common variance and the correlation .85 for Sample A, .85 for Sample B, and .91 for Sample C. Item-

matrix was factorable. Again, a 1-factor model was the best rep- total correlations for the BCBS items ranged between .46 and .75

resentation of the data, with 12 items (the same items as Sample for Sample A, .46 and .71 for Sample B, and .56 and .82 for Sample

A) having factor loadings above .50 on this factor. The anti-image C. These estimates uphold the internal consistency of the BCBS’s

correlation matrix detected that the same three item pairs were scores for community women, supporting H2.

Test–retest reliability. An intraclass correlation coefﬁcient

2 (ICC) and paired sample t-test were used to estimate the stabil-

Parallel analysis often is used to inform the number of factors to extract. The

rationale behind parallel analysis is that the factors underlying a measure should ity of the BCBS’s scores using data from the 92 participants who

account for more variance than is expected by chance. Therefore, factor analysis completed this measure twice, three weeks apart. The ICC was .84

is performed on the actual data as well as multiple sets of random data (in this

(p < .001). Additionally, BCBS scores did not increase or decrease

case, 1000) that have the same dimensions as the actual data set. If the eigen-

over time, t(91) = −0.32, p = .749. These ﬁndings suggest that BCBS

value generated from the analysis of the actual data exceeds the corresponding

scores are stable over a 3-week period for community women,

pooled eigenvalue from the analysis of the random data, then that factor may be

interpretable (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999). upholding H3.

74 T.L. Tylka, A.C. Iannantuono / Body Image 17 (2016) 67–81

Table 3

Broad Conceptualization of Beauty Scale (BCBS) item means and standard deviations: Studies 1 (Samples A–C) and 2.

Study 1 Study 2

Sample A Sample B Sample C

M SD M SD M SD M SD

BCBS items

1. Even if a physical feature is not considered attractive by 5.87 1.10 5.84 1.26 5.72 1.22 5.93 1.24

others or by society, I think that it can be beautiful.

2. A woman’s conﬁdence level can change my perception 6.05 1.19 6.09 1.26 5.97 1.21 6.10 1.14

of her physical beauty.

3. I think that a wide variety of body shapes are beautiful 6.09 1.13 6.14 1.23 5.94 1.21 6.17 1.16

for women.

4. A woman’s intelligence can change my perception of her 5.73 1.39 5.66 1.54 5.66 1.42

physical beauty.

5. I think that thin women are more beautiful than 4.70 1.71 4.61 1.83 4.45 1.87 4.61 1.81

women who have other body types. (reverse)

6. A woman’s soul or inner spirit can change my 5.84 1.24 5.83 1.28 5.62 1.42 5.94 1.36

perception of her physical beauty.

7. I deﬁne a woman’s beauty differently than how it is 5.52 1.41 5.72 1.44 5.09 1.63 5.45 1.62

portrayed in the media.

8. A woman’s acceptance of herself can change my 5.72 1.26 5.68 1.35 5.65 1.30 5.94 1.17

perception of her physical beauty.

9. I appreciate a wide range of different looks as beautiful. 6.05 1.05 6.16 1.12 5.93 1.19 6.26 1.04

10. A woman’s sense of humor can change my perception of 5.64 1.33 5.62 1.43 5.51 1.45

her physical beauty.

11. A woman’s kindness does not change my perception of 5.70 1.43 5.54 1.61 5.33 1.71

her physical beauty. (reverse)

12. I think that women of all body sizes can be beautiful. 5.89 1.31 5.99 1.37 5.69 1.49 5.98 1.36

13. I think that women whose appearance has been altered 5.39 1.51 5.21 1.64 5.26 1.58

dramatically (e.g., amputations, burns) can be just as

beautiful as women without these alterations.

14. I think that a woman is more beautiful when she is 20 4.25 1.76 4.12 1.82 3.87 1.83

than when she is 50. (reverse)

15. I think that the most beautiful women appear in the 5.03 1.78 5.10 1.68 4.58 1.89

media, such as models and actresses. (reverse)

16. I think that a wide variety of skin colorings are beautiful 6.45 0.97 6.49 0.99 6.42 1.03

for women.

Note: Item response range: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Moderately Disagree, 3 = Slightly Disagree, 4 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, 5 = Slightly Agree, 6 = Moderately Agree,

7 = Strongly Agree. For Study 1 Sample A, N = 321. For Study 1 Sample B, N = 164. For Study 1 Sample C, N = 343. For Study 2, N = 258. Items that are bolded were retained in

the ﬁnal version of the BCBS.

Convergent validity. As seen in Table 4, BCBS scores were Criterion-related validity. BCBS scores were moderately

strongly related to anti-fat attitudes (r = −.52, p < .001). In addition, related to body surveillance (r = −.34, p < .001), endorsement of

BCBS scores were moderately associated with body apprecia- cosmetic surgery for social reasons (e.g., improve appearance for

tion (rs = .23–.25, p < .001) and thin-ideal internalization (r = −.42, partner’s beneﬁt; r = −.35, p < .001), and body, eating, and exer-

p < .001). BCBS scores were also moderately linked to self- cise social comparisons (rs = −.31, −.24, and −.24, respectively,

compassion (r = .26, p < .001). Thus, BCBS scores yielded evidence of ps < .001). BCBS scores were negligibly related to consideration of

convergent validity for community women, supporting H4a, H4b, cosmetic surgery (r = −.15, p = .007) and intrapersonal endorsement

and H4c. of cosmetic surgery (i.e., attitudes that support cosmetic surgery for

those who want to “improve” their appearance; r = −.11, p = .050).

With the exception of the last ﬁnding, these results support H7, the

Incremental validity. BCBS scores were (a) inversely associ-

BCBS’s criterion-related (i.e., concurrent) validity.

ated with anti-fat attitudes after excluding its shared variance

with thin-ideal internalization, (b) positively associated with

self-compassion after excluding its shared variance with body

appreciation, and (c) positively associated with body appreciation

Evidence for BCB (others and self) variable. Supporting H8a,

and thin-ideal internalization after excluding its shared variance

the variable representing broad conceptualization of beauty for

with anti-fat attitudes (a signiﬁcant increment in R at Step 2 sup- 3

others and self (total BCBS score × BAS-2 Item 10) was strongly

port the BCBS’s unique associations with the criterion variables, see

related to self-compassion (r = .49, p < .001) and body compari-

Table 5). These ﬁndings suggest that the BCBS is not redundant with

son (r = −.47, p < .001), and moderately related to anti-fat attitudes

low thin-ideal internalization or high body appreciation, upholding

(r = −.31, p < .001), thin-ideal internalization (r = −.42, p < .001),

H5a, H5b, and H5c.

body surveillance (r = −.39, p < .001), eating comparison (r = −.32,

p < .001), exercise comparison (r = −.27, p < .001), endorsement in

−

Discriminant validity. As indicated in Table 4, BCBS scores cosmetic surgery for social reasons (r = .36, p < .001), and personal

were negligibly related (rs < |.20|; Cohen, 1992; Walsh & Betz, 2001)

to impression management (r = −.12, p = .138), narcissism (r = −.10,

p = .218), and BMI (r = .17, p = .034). These ﬁndings support the dis-

criminant validity of the BCBS for community women, upholding 3

BCBS total score and BAS-2 Item 10 were related (rs = .31, .29, .30, ps < .001) in

H6a, H6b, and H6c. Samples A, B, and C, respectively.

T.L. Tylka, A.C. Iannantuono / Body Image 17 (2016) 67–81 75

Table 4

Study 1 (Samples A–C) and Study 2 variable means (SD) and correlations.

Variable M SD Possible range 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Study 1, Sample A

1. BCBS 5.75 0.86 1–7 –

***

2. Body appreciation 3.43 0.79 1–5 .24 –

***

3. Anti-fat attitudes 3.01 0.72 1–5 −.52 −.04 –

*** *** ***

4. Thin-ideal internalization 2.80 1.06 1–5 −.42 −.28 .36 –

*** *** * ***

5. Self-compassion 3.13 0.82 1–5 .26 .53 −.12 −.28 –

*** *** ***

6. Body mass index 26.45 7.00 N/A .20 −.29 −.28 −.08 −.02 –

*** *** *** *** ***

7. BCBS × BAS-2 Item 10 19.34 7.52 1–35 .61 .75 −.31 −.42 .49 −.04

Study 1, Sample B

1. BCBS 5.78 0.92 1–7 –

2. Body appreciation 3.52 0.89 1–5 .23 –

3. Impression Management 3.80 1.00 1–7 −.12 .22 –

***

4. Narcissism 3.72 3.19 0–16 −.10 .36 −.12 –

* *** **

5. Body mass index 27.00 8.01 N/A .17 −.39 −.09 −.22 –

*** *** * ** *

6. BCBS × BAS-2 Item 10 20.12 7.44 1–35 .61 .78 .20 .25 −.19

Study 1, Sample C

1. BCBS 5.56 1.07 1–7 –

***

2. Body appreciation 3.44 0.88 1–5 .25 –

*** ***

3. Body surveillance 4.58 1.34 1–7 −.34 −.35 –

*** *** ***

4. Body comparison 4.13 1.43 1–7 −.31 −.42 .70 –

*** *** *** ***

5. Eating comparison 3.40 1.43 1–7 −.24 −.30 .49 .68 –

*** *** *** *** ***

6. Exercise comparison 2.92 1.43 1–7 −.24 −.19 .38 .57 .72 –

* *** *** * ***

7. Cosmetic surgery-Intrapersonal 4.61 1.47 1–7 −.11 −.13 .26 .24 .13 .21 –

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

8. Cosmetic surgery-Social 3.36 1.72 1–7 −.35 −.24 .41 .35 .27 .30 .67 –

** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

− 9. Cosmetic surgery-Consider 4.14 1.92 1–7 .15 −.28 .33 .30 .21 .20 .75 .79 –

** *** *

10. Body mass index 25.43 6.94 N/A .18 −.30 .04 .10 .09 −.04 −.01 .02 .13 –

*** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** ***

11. BCBS × BAS-2 Item 10 18.59 7.69 1–35 .66 .77 −.39 −.47 −.32 −.27 −.16 −.36 −.25 −.04

Study 2

1. BCBS 5.82 0.95 1–7 –

***

2. Body appreciation 3.33 0.90 1–5 .29 –

*** ***

3. Body image quality of life 0.98 1.32 −3 to +3 .21 .80 –

*** ***

4. Authentic body pride 2.68 0.86 1–5 .08 .57 .61 –

*** *** ***

5. Hubristic body pride 2.37 0.87 1–5 −.01 .54 .53 .67 –

*** *** *** ***

6. Body mass index 26.98 7.50 N/A .09 −.37 −.41 −.26 −.23 –

*** *** *** *** *** ***

7. BCBS × BAS-2 Item 10 18.59 7.79 1–35 .57 .82 .67 .44 .46 −.24

Note: For Study 1 Sample A, N = 321. For Study 1 Sample B, N = 164. For Study 1 Sample C, N = 343. For Study 2, N = 258. BCBS = Broad Conceptualization of Beauty Scale (9-item),

BAS-2 = Body Appreciation Scale. BCBS × BAS-2 Item 10 = the BCB (others and self) variable. The BCBS total score and the BAS-2 Item 10 (assessing self-beauty) were correlated

(rs) .31 in Study 1 Sample A, .29 in Study 1 Sample B, .30 in Study 1 Sample C, and .29 in Study 2.

p < .05.

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

consideration of cosmetic surgery (r = −.25, p < .001; see Table 4). contains strong, positive, self-conscious body-related emotions

Upholding H8b, BCB (others and self) also contributed incremen- that are grounded in perceptions that one’s appearance is supe-

tal variance in self-compassion, thin-ideal internalization, social rior to others (i.e., hubristic body-related pride) and invested effort

comparisons (body, eating, and exercise), and cosmetic surgery into appearance goals (i.e., authentic pride; Castonguay, Sabiston,

endorsement for social reasons beyond the variance contributed Crocker, & Mack, 2014).

by body appreciation (see Table 5). Hypotheses

Study 2

First, we hypothesized that the 9-item BCBS would yield inter-

Study 2 had two stages. First, because seven items were deleted nally consistent scores (H1a) and a unidimensional solution via CFA

from the original 16-item BCBS administered to Samples A–C, we (H1b). Second, we predicted that both the BCBS and the BCB (others

included only the ﬁnal nine BCBS items in Study 2 to ensure the and self) variable would be positively associated with body image

internal consistency of its scores and unidimensional factor struc- quality of life (H2), given that women who indicate that their pos-

ture could be replicated. Second, we further explored the construct itive body image enhances their daily experiences also reported

validity of the BCBS and the BCB (others and self) variable by explor- having a broad conceptualization of beauty (Wood-Barcalow et al.,

ing their relationships with body image quality of life (convergent 2010). We expected that the BCBS would have a moderate corre-

validity) and body-related pride (discriminant validity). Body image lation with body image quality of life (i.e., anticipated r between

quality of life reﬂects how positively or negatively an individual .20 and .40; Cohen, 1992) and the BCB (others and self) variable

≥

perceives that her or his body image is impacting multiple life would have a strong relationship (i.e., r .50; Cohen, 1992) to body

contexts, such as sexuality, feelings of personal adequacy, inter- image quality of life, because perceptions of self-beauty, which are

actions with others of the same sex and opposite sex, day-to-day reﬂected in the BCB (others and self) variable, may be more strongly

emotions, experiences at work or school, etc. Body-related pride connected to women’s own body image quality of life than solely

perceptions of women’s beauty, as reﬂected in the BCBS. Third, we

anticipated that both the BCBS and the BCB (others and self) vari-

| |

4 able would be negligibly related (rs < .20 ; Cohen, 1992; Walsh &

We do not interpret the relationship between the BCB (others and self) variable

Betz, 2001) to hubristic and authentic pride (H3), as the former vari-

and body appreciation, given that one of the key variables in the construction of the

BCB (others and self) variable is BAS-2 Item 10. ables are based on perceiving beauty in all individuals, rather than

76 T.L. Tylka, A.C. Iannantuono / Body Image 17 (2016) 67–81

Table 5

Incremental contributions of broad conceptualization of beauty to well-being: Study 1.

2 2

Total R R F ˇ t

a ***

Criterion: Anti-fat attitudes, F(2, 318) = 67.21

***

Step 1 .141 .141 52.48

***

Thin-ideal internalization .38 7.24

***

Step 2 .297 .156 70.51

***

Thin-ideal internalization .20 3.77

***

BCBS −.43 −8.40

a ***

Criterion: Self-compassion, F(2, 318) = 64.14

***

Step 1 .280 .280 121.15

***

Body appreciation .53 11.01

Step 2 .292 .012 5.42

***

Body appreciation .50 10.24

BCBS −.21 2.33

a ***

Criterion: Body appreciation, F(2, 318) = 10.74

Step 1 .001 .001 0.37

Anti-fat attitudes −.03 0.54

***

Step 2 .065 .064 21.09

Ant-fat attitudes .12 1.88

***

BCBS .30 4.59

a ***

Criterion: Thin-ideal internalization, F(2, 318) = 42.05 *** Step 1 .141 .141 52.48

***

Anti-fat attitudes .38 7.24 *** Step 2 .209 .068 27.29

***

Ant-fat attitudes .22 3.77 − *** BCBS .30 5.22

a ***

Criterion: Thin-ideal internalization, Overall F(2, 318) = 33.45 *** Step 1 .075 .075 25.38

***

Body appreciation −.27 −5.04 ***

Step 2 .177 .102 38.47

Body appreciation .08 1.08

***

BCBS × BAS-2 Item 10 .17 −6.20

a ***

Criterion: Self-compassion, F(2, 318) = 64.39

***

Step 1 .280 .280 121.15

***

Body appreciation .53 11.01

Step 2 .293 .013 5.78

***

Body appreciation .40 5.60

BCBS × BAS-2 Item 10 .17 2.40

b ***

Criterion: Body surveillance, F(2, 340) = 31.21

***

Step 1 .120 .120 46.47

***

Body appreciation −.35 −6.82

***

Step 2 .155 .035 14.15

Body appreciation −.12 −1.54

***

BCBS × BAS-2 Item 10 −.29 −3.76

b ***

Criterion: Body comparison, F(2, 340) = 48.25

***

Step 1 .177 .177 70.95

***

Body appreciation −.42 −8.42

***

Step 2 .226 .050 21.22

Body appreciation −.15 −1.96

***

BCBS × BAS-2 Item 10 −.29 −4.61

b ***

Criterion: Eating comparison, F(2, 340) = 21.23

***

Step 1 .093 .093 34.78

− ***

Body appreciation .31 −5.90

Step 2 .112 .019 7.06 − − Body appreciation .15 1.77

BCBS × BAS-2 Item 10 −.29 −2.13

b ***

Criterion: Exercise comparison, F(2, 340) = 13.39

***

Step 1 .036 .036 12.59

***

Body appreciation −.19 −3.55

***

Step 2 .074 .038 13.71

Body appreciation .04 0.60

***

BCBS × BAS-2 Item 10 −.29 −3.70

b ***

Criterion: Cosmetic surgery: social, F(2, 340) = 25.74

***

Step 1 .059 .059 21.36

***

Body appreciation −.24 −4.62

***

Step 2 .132 .073 28.40

Body appreciation .08 1.03

***

BCBS × BAS-2 Item 10 −.42 −5.33

b *

Criterion: Cosmetic surgery: intrapersonal, F(2, 340) = 4.49

Step 1 .017 .017 5.93

***

Body appreciation −.13 −2.43

Step 2 .026 .009 3.02

Body appreciation −.02 −0.22

BCBS × BAS-2 Item 10 −.15 −1.74

b ***

Criterion: Cosmetic surgery: consider, F(2, 340) = 14.82

***

Step 1 .077 .077 28.52

− ***

Body appreciation .28 −5.34

Step 2 .080 .003 1.12

Body appreciation −.21 −2.60

BCBS × BAS-2 Item 10 −.09 −1.06

Sample A (N = 321).

Sample C (N = 343). BCBS = Broad Conceptualization of Beauty Scale (9-item), BAS-2 = Body Appreciation Scale-2. BCBS × BAS-2 Item 10 = the BCB (others and self) variable.

p < .05.

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

T.L. Tylka, A.C. Iannantuono / Body Image 17 (2016) 67–81 77

focusing on how one’s appearance is physically superior or engag- et al., 2014). In the present study, Cronbach’s alphas were .93 for

ing in efforts to achieve or maintain a certain look, as the latter the Hubristic subscale and .91 for the Authentic subscale.

variables do.

Results

Participants and procedure. We received IRB approval from

the same large U.S. Midwestern university as Study 1. Interested Preliminary analyses. There were 27 missing scale items

women signed up via the MTurk worker hit website. Once again, (0.23% of all scale items), which were missing completely at random

we restricted the sample to U.S. citizens who have completed at according to Little’s MCAR analysis. We used multiple imputation

least 100 MTurk hits and had their previous work approved at least to estimate these missing data. Skewness and kurtosis values were

98% of the time. This study was described to all participants as below the critical limits for all total scales and BCBS items (Kline,

“an investigation of attitudes toward attractiveness and person- 2010); thus, no scale or item was transformed.

ality.” Women provided their consent and completed the study

online via SurveyMonkey. Male participants were channeled to Internal consistency. Scores on the BCBS were internally con-

a different questionnaire battery of approximately equal length sistent (Cronbach’s ˛ = .88), with item-total correlations ranging

and analyzed independently of the present study. Participants each from .49 to .74, upholding H1a.

received $1.00 as remuneration.

Women were excluded if they completed the questionnaire bat-

Conﬁrming the BCBS’s unidimensionality. We speciﬁed each

tery more than once, completed Study 1, failed at least one of three

BCBS item to load onto a latent “broad conceptualization of beauty”

embedded validity questions, terminated early, or had signiﬁcant

latent factor and analyzed this CFA model via Mplus (Muthén &

missing data; 7% of cases were excluded based on these criteria.

Muthén,1998–2011). As in Study 1, we estimated error covariances

Data from 258 women were retained and analyzed; this sample

between Items 2, 5, and 7 as well as between Items 3, 4, and 9 in

size was large enough to detect the statistical signiﬁcance (p < .01)

Study 2, as these two clusters of items shared method variance

of an effect size of r ≥ .20 (Cohen, 1992). Sample demographic char-

due to their similar phrasing. Findings indicated that each item

acteristics are provided in Table 2. On average, women were in

loaded onto the latent broad conceptualization of beauty factor (see

their mid-30s, White, and heterosexual, and reported an annual

Table 1 for item-factor loadings) and accounted for 53.80% of the

household income of less than $60,000 and at least a year of higher

variance, and the overall model ﬁt the data (CFI = .962, SRMR = .036,

education. Most U.S. states were represented in their data, with no 2

RMSEA = .088 [90% CI = .063–.113]), (21) = 62.89, p < .001. These

one geographic area over-represented.

indices conﬁrm the BCBS’s unidimensionality, supporting H1b.

Measures. Measures were counterbalanced to control for order Convergent validity. The BCBS was moderately related to body

effects. image quality of life (r = .21, p < .001), and the BCB (others and self)

variable was strongly related to body image quality of life (r = .67,

Broad conceptualization of women’s beauty. The 9-item BCBS p < .001). These ﬁndings (see Table 4) uphold H2, providing addi-

(Table 1, bolded items) was administered. tional evidence for the convergent validity of the BCBS’s scores with

community women. BCBS scores were also related to body appre-

ciation (r = .29, p < .001) , which replicated associations found in

Body appreciation. The 10-item BAS-2, described in Study 1,

Study 1.

was also used in Study 2. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha

was .95

Discriminant validity. Nonsigniﬁcant, negligible correlations

were revealed between BCBS scores and hubristic body pride

Body image quality of life. The 19-item Body Image Quality of

(r = −.01, p = .826) and authentic body pride (r = .08, p = .197; see

Life Inventory (BIQLI; Cash & Fleming, 2002) explores how indi-

Table 4), adding support to the discriminant validity of the BCBS’s

viduals perceive their body image experiences affecting 19 life

scores with community women (H3). However, positive relation-

domains (e.g., “my day-to-day emotions,” “my satisfaction with my

ships moderate in strength (i.e., 19–21% conceptual overlap) were

life in general,” “my feelings of acceptability as a sexual partner”).

noted between the BCB (others and self) variable and both authen-

Items are rated along a 7-point scale: very negative effect (scored as

− tic and hubristic body pride (rs = .44 and .46, respectively, ps < .001;

3), moderate negative effect (−2), slight negative effect (−1), no effect

see Table 4). Thus, evidence for the BCB (others and self) variable’s

(0), slight positive effect (+1), moderate positive effect (+2), and very

discriminant validity was less apparent in this particular case.

positive effect (+3). Items are summed, with higher scores reﬂect-

ing a more positive impact of body image on quality of life. The

internal consistency, 2- to 3-week test–retest reliability, and con- Discussion

vergent validity of its scores were upheld among college samples of

women (Cash & Fleming, 2002; Cash, Jakatdar, & Williams, 2004). In the present study, we report on the development and psycho-

In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .97. metric investigation of the BCBS, a scale that assesses the degree

women perceive beauty in various body sizes, shapes, and appear-

ances as well as perceive that certain inner characteristics, such

Hubristic and authentic body pride. We administered the

as conﬁdence and self-acceptance, can inﬂuence beauty. In two

Hubristic (four items, e.g., “Proud that I am more attractive than

studies containing four independent samples of U.S. online com-

others”) and Authentic (four items, e.g., “Proud that I maintain

munity women, we evaluated the BCBS and its factor structure,

my desired appearance”) body pride subscales of the Body and

as well as examined the reliability and validity of its scores. Two

Appearance Self-Conscious Emotions Scale (BASES; Castonguay

exploratory factor analyses and two conﬁrmatory factor analyses

et al., 2014). Items are rated along a 5-point scale ranging from

uniformly concluded that the BCBS is a unidimensional scale with

never (scored as 1) to always (scored as 5). Items are averaged,

nine items. Estimates of reliability (i.e., internal consistency and

with higher scores indicating greater body pride. The internal

consistency, 2-week test–retest reliability, convergent validity, dis-

criminant validity, and criterion-related validity of both pride

subscales’ scores were upheld among college samples (Castonguay BCBS total score was correlated r = .29, p < .001, with the BAS-2 Item 10.

78 T.L. Tylka, A.C. Iannantuono / Body Image 17 (2016) 67–81

3-week test-retest stability) and validity (i.e., convergent, discrim- We investigated this variable, which we refer to as BCB (others

inant, criterion-related, and incremental) suggest that the BCBS is and self), alongside the other study variables, and found support

a psychometrically sound measure and support its use with com- for its use within positive body image research, as it explained

munity women. between 10% and 45% of the variance in these variables. Speciﬁcally,

Additionally, we garnered evidence for the adaptive proper- BCB (others and self) was positively related to self-compassion

ties and uniqueness of broad conceptualization of beauty as a and positive body image quality of life, and inversely related to

distinct and meaningful construct. First, it is linked to multi- social comparisons (body, eating, and exercise), anti-fat attitudes,

ple indices of women’s well-being. Broadly conceptualizing other thin-ideal internalization, body surveillance, and contemplation of

women’s beauty was associated with lower anti-fat attitudes, thin- cosmetic surgery. These relationships remained signiﬁcant even

ideal internalization, body surveillance, social (body, eating, and when controlling for body appreciation (total BAS-2 scores), indi-

exercise) comparisons, and contemplation of cosmetic surgery, cating that BCB (others and self) assesses something different than

explaining between 6% and 27% of the variance of these variables. general body appreciation. Furthermore, BCB (others and self) was

Moreover, it was associated with higher body appreciation, self- unrelated to BMI in two (of four) samples and inversely related

compassion, and a more positive impact of body image on quality to BMI to a slight to moderate degree in the two remaining sam-

of life, explaining between 4% and 8% of variance in these variables. ples. Unlike BCBS scores alone, BCB (others and self) was positively

Broadly conceptualizing other women’s beauty was unrelated to related to hubristic body pride, authentic body pride, narcissism,

women’s perceptions that their appearance is superior, and taking and impression management; therefore, reporting self-beauty may

pride in their efforts to achieve and maintain their desired appear- be linked to a decreased tendency to be “modest” about oneself

ance, which may be unnatural for their bodies. It was also unrelated and one’s appearance. In fact, to resist the urge to engage in dis-

to general narcissism and social desirability. paraging body talk and instead engage in body acceptance, perhaps

Second, broad conceptualization of beauty is a distinct and girls and women may actually beneﬁt from talking about their bod-

meaningful construct in that it (a) did not share considerable ies favorably and promoting themselves in positive ways (Parker

variance with other body image constructs, (b) explained incre- et al., 1995; Piran, 2015; Tylka & Augustus-Horvath, 2011). The

mental variance in several indices of psychological well-being, and BCB (others and self) variable provides researchers with a broader

(c) demonstrated different patterns of relationships with already- operationalization and assessment of broad conceptualization of

identiﬁed components of positive body image. Speciﬁc to point beauty if they choose to use it within their research on positive

a, the relationships between broad conceptualization of beauty body image.

and theoretically similar constructs such as higher body appre-

ciation and positive body image quality of life, as well as lower

thin-ideal internalization, were only moderate in strength. This Clinical Implications

pattern of relationships provided initial evidence that broad con-

ceptualization of beauty is not redundant with already-identiﬁed Evidence accrued in this article can be used to tentatively jus-

components of body image. Speciﬁc to point b, women with higher tify the inclusion of the BCBS within varied settings to promote

BCBS scores were more likely to report higher self-compassion, positive body image and body acceptance of others. Within school

even after controlling for women’s body appreciation, and more settings, educators can use the BCBS item content to develop lesson

likely to report lower anti-fat attitudes, even after controlling for plans that approach body image from a perspective of hygiology,

thin-ideal internalization. Women with higher BCBS scores were diversity, compassion, and acceptance rather than a perspective of

also likely to report higher body appreciation and lower thin-ideal pathology and weight bias. Given that body acceptance by family

internalization after controlling for anti-fat attitudes. This pat- and peers is a predictor of adolescent girls’ positive body image

tern of ﬁndings revealed that broad conceptualization of beauty and intuitive eating over time (Andrew, Tiggemann, & Clark, 2016),

is related to but also distinguishable from low anti-fat attitudes, it is important to ﬁnd ways that educators can improve parents’

high body appreciation, and low thin-ideal internalization. Speciﬁc and peers’ expressions of body acceptance to their daughters and

to point c, broad conceptualization of beauty exhibited different friends. Body acceptance of others is consistent with conceptu-

patterns of relationships with several well-being indices than did alizing a wide range of external and internal characteristics as

body appreciation and positive body image quality of life. In partic- beautiful; thus, perhaps BCBS item content can be used to shape the

ular, broad conceptualization of beauty was negatively related to development of programs aimed at reducing weight stigma within

anti-fat attitudes, positively related to BMI (albeit to a slight degree) schools, homes, and interpersonal relationships and then used to

in three out of four samples, and unrelated to narcissism, impres- assess these programs’ effectiveness.

sion management, hubristic body pride, and authentic body pride. Within clinical settings, the BCBS could be used to tailor and

In contrast, body appreciation was unrelated to anti-fat attitudes, assess compassion-based interventions for women with body

negatively related to BMI in all four samples, and positively related shame. Body shame is often a result of deviating from media

to narcissism, impression management, hubristic body pride, and appearance ideals (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997), and is associated

authentic body pride. In the one sample that contained positive with stigmatizing others based on their weight (Webb, Fiery, &

body image quality of life, it was negatively related to BMI and pos- Jafari, 2016). Because compassion-focused therapy (CFT; Gilbert,

itively related to hubristic and authentic body pride. This pattern of 2005) alleviates shame, integrating the broad conceptualization of

ﬁndings suggests that the BCBS may detect a dimension of positive beauty construct within CFT approaches could speciﬁcally target

body image that is more accepting and appreciative of a wide-range body shame via body compassion of self and others.

of women’s appearances, compared to the BAS-2 and the BIQLI. Within primary prevention programs, the BCBS could be used

It is noteworthy that the abovementioned ﬁndings are based to guide the development of interventions aimed at blocking par-

on women’s perceptions of women’s beauty, which may or may ticipants’ endorsement of thinness as a personal standard. Within

not reﬂect perceptions of their own beauty. Given that women’s secondary prevention programs, the BCBS could guide intervention

broad conceptualization of beauty should extend to themselves as development within dissonance-based programs, as increasing

well, we created a variable to reﬂect this by multiplying BCBS total broad conceptualization of beauty could theoretically create disso-

scores with the one item on the BAS-2 that assesses self-beauty, nance, a variable shown to lessen participants’ existing thin-ideal

i.e., Item 10: “I feel like I am beautiful even if I am different from internalization (Stice et al., 2013). The BCBS could be integrated into

media images of attractive people (e.g., models, actresses/actors).” research examining the effectiveness of such prevention programs,

T.L. Tylka, A.C. Iannantuono / Body Image 17 (2016) 67–81 79

as these programs should promote increases in positive body image allowing her to stay in contact with her thoughts and feelings as

alongside decreases in negative body image (Piran, 2015). she pursues valued behavior.

Fourth, because beauty is a gendered construct, the BCBS should

Limitations and Future Research not be used with boys and men. In Western cultures, boys and men

who endorse masculine gender roles often renounce qualities asso-

Limitations of the present study, the BCBS, and the overall ciated with the feminine gender role and being perceived as gay

importance of beauty in women’s lives, need to be acknowledged. (Kimmel, 2004), which may interfere with their ability to objec-

First, while our four samples are more diverse than most col- tively evaluate the appearance of other men and refer to them as

lege student samples, they remain limited in their generalizability. beautiful. Researchers need to explore whether broadly conceptu-

The majority of participants identiﬁed as White, heterosexual, and alizing beauty is a feature of men’s positive body image, and if so,

well-educated women living in the U.S. with rather low annual design a scale that does not confound this construct with sexual

household incomes. Researchers need to explore the BCBS and attraction.

the BCB (others and self) variable among individuals of various Fifth, these studies were correlational in design. It is necessary

developmental stages, cultures, geographic areas, education levels, for researchers to conduct research on broad conceptualization

socioeconomic means, and sexual orientation groups to determine of beauty using prospective and experimental designs. In partic-

the applicability and usefulness of this construct. ular, this construct could be explored as a protective factor for

Second, the BCBS’s self-report design relies on individuals accu- maladaptive outcomes, such as disordered eating and body image

rately conveying their attitudes toward women’s beauty. Despite disturbance. Protective factors reduce maladaptive outcomes by

its low conceptual overlap with impression management, there is decreasing these outcomes directly, preventing the initial occur-

no way to discern whether women’s responses were honest. In par- rence of a risk factor such as thin-ideal internalization, and/or

ticular, the mean scores for the BCBS were rather high, indicating interacting with a risk factor to interrupt its harmful effects

that participants, on average, broadly conceptualized beauty. We (Tylka & Kroon Van Diest, 2015). Using experimental designs,

found this rather high endorsement intriguing, given that idealiz- researchers could examine whether a broad conceptualization of

ing thinness and weight stigma are prevalent in Western cultures beauty protects women from wanting to change their appearance,

(Tylka et al., 2014), which runs counter to the broad conceptual- or experiencing heightened body dissatisfaction and/or nega-

ization of beauty construct. Perhaps women would like to think tive affect, after viewing thin models. Using prospective designs,

that they broadly conceptualize beauty as they complete the rather researchers could examine whether a child’s exposure to family,

face valid BCBS, but also believe that cultural appearance ideals are schools, and peers who reinforce an appreciation of diverse body

more desirable. These latter beliefs may only emerge when they are sizes and appearances could protect against thin-ideal internal-

directly asked about thinness being preferable for women. Indeed, ization, body image disturbance, and/or disordered eating as an

the one BCBS item that speciﬁcally mentions thinness (“I think that adolescent and/or adult (Halliwell, 2015). These questions are wor-

thin women are more beautiful than women who have other body thy to explore.

types”), when reverse scored, produced lower mean scores when

compared to the remaining items. Conclusion

Third, beauty is a gendered construct, applied to (and expected

from) girls and women much more so than boys and men (Wolf,

The BCBS is a unidimensional measure with strong reliabil-

1991). Speciﬁcally, gendered expectations that girls and women

ity and validity evidence across four samples of U.S. community

should orient toward “female beauty” serve to conﬁne women’s

women. Our ﬁndings uphold the broad conceptualization of beauty

behavior and limit their resources—e.g., by spending time and

construct as an important component of positive body image that

energy on being viewed as beautiful and evaluating other girls’ and

is differentiated from body appreciation, low thin-ideal internal-

women’s beauty. While broadly conceptualizing beauty, by deﬁ-

ization, and anti-fat attitudes. Thus, broad conceptualization of

nition, does not narrowly limit girls and women to a certain rigid

beauty may be most useful when explored in combination with

appearance standard (i.e., thinness), and may actually serve to free

other variables known to be relevant to positive body image and

them from this standard, the BCBS’s emphasis on female beauty

well-being. Containing only nine items, the BCBS is easy to admin-

could feed into gendered expectations of beauty. Nevertheless,

ister and score, facilitating its integration within research, clinical,

broadly conceptualizing beauty has been regularly recognized in

prevention, and educational contexts.

qualitative research as an important aspect of positive body image

that nurtures an overall sense of well-being and a decreased preoc-

Appendix. Broad Conceptualization of Beauty Scale (BCBS;

cupation with appearance (Bailey et al., 2015; Holmqvist & Frisén,

Final Version)

2012; McHugh et al., 2014; Wood-Barcalow et al., 2010). In fact, the

present study shows that the BCBS and the BCB (others and self)

Permission to use this measure is not required. However, we do

variable are inversely linked to appearance monitoring (i.e., body

request that you notify the corresponding author via email if you

surveillance), which provides initial evidence that broadly con-

use the Broad Conceptualization of Beauty Scale in your research.

ceptualizing beauty may not limit women’s resources. Additional

Please seek permission if any item is modiﬁed.

research on this construct using the BCBS may reveal its limitations

For each item, the following response scale should be used:

to girls and women, if any. In contrast, having a broad concep-

Strongly Disagree (scored as 1), Moderately Disagree (2), Slightly

tualization of beauty may facilitate body image ﬂexibility, which

Disagree (3), Neither Agree Nor Disagree (4), Slightly Agree (5),

represents a mindful, compassionate response to accept rather than

Moderately Agree (6), Strongly Agree (7).

avoid, escape, or alter negative thoughts and feelings associated

Directions for participants: How do YOU deﬁne women’s

with threats to body image (Webb et al., 2015). That is, if a woman

beauty? Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each

encounters a body related threat, such as her partner noting her

statement. We are only interested in YOUR beliefs, which may or

weight gain, having a broad conceptualization of beauty may make

may not be reﬂected by others or society.

it easier for her to stay mindful of her negative thoughts and feelings

that emerge from the threat, as her sense of beauty is not contin-

1. Even if a physical feature is not considered attractive by others

gent on the content of the body related threat. Therefore, a broad

or by society, I think that it can be beautiful.

conceptualization of beauty may buffer the impact of the threat,

80 T.L. Tylka, A.C. Iannantuono / Body Image 17 (2016) 67–81

2. A woman’s conﬁdence level can change my perception of her Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating

the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological

physical beauty.

Methods, 4, 272–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272

3. I think that a wide variety of body shapes are beautiful for

Fitzsimmons-Craft, E. E., Bardone-Cone, A. M., & Harney, M. B. (2012). Development

women. and validation of the Body, Eating, and Exercise Comparison Orientation Mea-

sure (BEECOM) among college women. Body Image, 9, 476–487. http://dx.doi.

4. I think that thin women are more beautiful than women who

org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2012.07.007

have other body types.*

Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T.-A. (1997). Objectiﬁcation theory: Toward under-

5. A woman’s soul or inner spirit can change my perception of her standing women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of

Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997. physical beauty.

tb00108.x

6. I deﬁne a woman’s beauty differently than how it is portrayed in

Frisén, A., & Holmqvist, K. (2010). What characterizes early adolescents with a pos-

the media. itive body image? A qualitative investigation of Swedish girls and boys. Body

Image, 7, 205–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2010.04.001

7. A woman’s acceptance of herself can change my perception of

Gardner, R. M., Brown, D. L., & Boice, R. (2012). Using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk

her physical beauty.

website to measure accuracy of body size estimation and body dissatisfaction.

8. I appreciate a wide range of different looks as beautiful. Body Image, 9, 532–534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2012.06.006

Gilbert, P. (Ed.). (2005). Compassion: Conceptualizations, research, and use in psy-

9. I think that women of all body sizes can be beautiful.

chotherapy. London: Routledge.

Halliwell, E. (2013). The impact of thin idealized media images on body satisfaction:

Does body appreciation protect women from negative effects? Body Image, 10, *Reverse score.

509–514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.07.004

Scoring Procedure: Reverse score Item 4, and then average par-

Halliwell, E. (2015). Future directions for positive body image research [Special

ticipants’ responses to Items 1–9. series]. Body Image, 14, 177–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.03.

003

Note. Some researchers may wish to create a variable that

Halliwell, E., Jarman, H., McNamara, A., Risdon, H., & Jankowski, G. (2015). Dis-

reﬂects women’s perceptions of other women’s beauty (BCBS

semination of evidence-based body image interventions: A pilot study into the

items) and their own beauty (BAS-2 Item 10). To do this, create effectiveness of using undergraduate students as interventionists in secondary

an interaction term by multiplying the BCBS total score with Item schools. Body Image, 14, 1–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.02.002

Heinberg, L. J., Thompson, J. K., & Stormer, S. (1995). Development and validation

10 of the BAS-2, “I feel like I am beautiful even if I am different from

of the Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire. Interna-

media images of attractive people (e.g., models, actresses/actors).”

tional Journal of Eating Disorders, 17, 81–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1098-

108X(199501)17:1<81::AID-EAT2260170111>3.0.CO;2-Y

Henderson-King, D., & Henderson-King, E. (2005). Acceptance of cosmetic surgery:

References Scale development and validation. Body Image, 2, 137–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.

1016/j.bodyim.2005.03.003

Holmqvist, K., & Frisén, A. (2012). “I bet they aren’t that perfect in reality”: Appear-

Ames, D. R., Rose, P., & Anderson, C. P. (2006). The NPI-16 as a short measure of

ance ideals viewed from the perspective of adolescents with a positive body

narcissism. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 440–450. http://dx.doi.org/10.

image. Body Image, 9, 388–395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2012.03.007

1016/j.jrp.2005.03.002

Homan, K. J., & Tylka, T. L. (2015). Self-compassion moderates body comparison

Andrew, R., Tiggemann, M., & Clark, L. (2015). Predictors of intuitive eating in adoles-

and appearance self-worth’s inverse relationships with body appreciation. Body

cent girls. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56, 209–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

Image, 15, 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.04.007

jadohealth.2014.09.005

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for ﬁt indices in covariance structure analy-

Andrew, R., Tiggemann, M., & Clark, L. (2016). Predictors and health-related

sis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,

outcomes of positive body image in adolescent girls: A prospective study. Devel-

6, 1–55.

opmental Psychology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000095 (E-publication

Iannantuono, A. C., & Tylka, T. L. (2012). Interpersonal and intrapersonal links to body

ahead of print)

appreciation in college women: An exploratory model. Body Image, 9, 227–235.

Augustus-Horvath, C. L., & Tylka, T. L. (2009). A test and extension of objectiﬁcation

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2012.01.004

theory as it predicts disordered eating: Does women’s age matter? Journal of

Kimmel, M. (2004). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the

Counseling Psychology, 56, 253–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014637

construction of gender identity. In P. S. Rothenberg (Ed.), Race, class, and gender

Avalos, L. C., Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. (2005). The Body Appreciation Scale:

in the United States. New York, NY: Worth.

Development and psychometric evaluation. Body Image, 2, 285–297. http://dx.

Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.).

doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2005.06.002

New York: Guilford Press.

Bailey, K. A., Gammage, K. L., van Ingen, C., & Ditor, D. S. (2015). “It’s all about

McHugh, T. L., Coppola, A. M., & Sabiston, C. M. (2014). “I’m thankful for being Native

acceptance”: A qualitative study exploring a model of positive body image for

and my body is part of that”: The body pride experiences of young Aboriginal

people with spinal cord injury. Body Image, 15, 24–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

women in Canada. Body Image, 11, 318–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim. j.bodyim.2015.04.010

2014.05.004

Bergeron, S. M., & Senn, C. Y. (1998). Body image and sociocultural norms: A com-

McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The Objectiﬁed Body Consciousness Scale:

parison of heterosexual and lesbian women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22,

Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 181–215.

385–401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00164.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00467.x

Brown, T. A. (2006). Conﬁrmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York:

Morrison, T. G., & O’Connor, W. E. (1999). Psychometric properties of a scale

Guilford Press.

measuring negative attitudes toward overweight individuals. Journal of Social

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A

Psychology, 139, 436–445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224549909598403

new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2011). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles,

Science, 6, 3–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980

CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Cash, T. F., & Fleming, E. C. (2002). The impact of body image experiences: Develop-

Neff, K. D. (2003). The development and validation of a scale to measure

ment of the Body Image Quality of Life Inventory. International Journal of Eating

self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2, 223–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/

Disorders, 31, 455–460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.10033

15298860309027

Cash, T. F., Jakatdar, T. A., & Williams, E. F. (2004). The Body Image Quality of Life

Parker, S., Nichter, M., Nichter, M., Vuckovic, N., Sims, C., & Ritenbaugh, C. (1995).

Inventory: Further validation with college men and women. Body Image, 1,

Body image and weight concerns among African American and White adolescent

279–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1740-1445(03)00023-8

females: Differences that make a difference. Human Organization, 54, 103–114.

Castonguay, A. L., Sabiston, C. M., Crocker, P. R. E., & Mack, D. E. (2014). Develop-

http://dx.doi.org/10.17730/humo.54.2.06h663745q650450

ment and validation of the Body and Appearance Self-Conscious Emotions Scale

Paulhus, D. L. (1994). Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding reference manual for

(BASES). Body Image, 11, 126–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.12.

BIDR Version 6. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

006

Piran, N. (2015). New possibilities in the prevention of eating disorders: The intro-

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. http://dx.doi.

duction of positive body image measures [Special series]. Body Image, 14, org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

146–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.03.008

Cook-Cottone, C. P. (2015). Incorporating positive body image into the treatment of

Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff, K. D., & Van Gucht, D. (2011). Construction and factorial

eating disorders: A model for attunement and mindful self-care [Special series].

validation of a short form of the Self-Compassion Scale. Clinical Psychology &

Body Image, 14, 158–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.03.004

Psychotherapy, 18, 250–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpp.702

Costa, J., Marôco, J., Pinto-Gouveia, J., Ferreira, C., & Castilho, P. (2015). Validation of

Satinsky, S., Reece, M., Dennis, B., Sanders, S., & Bardzell, S. (2012). An assessment of

the psychometric properties of the Self-Compassion Scale. Testing the factorial

body appreciation and its relationship to sexual function in women. Body Image,

validity and factorial invariance of the measure among borderline personality

9, 137–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2011.09.007

disorder, anxiety disorder, eating disorder and general populations. Clinical Psy-

Schaefer, L. M., Burke, N. L., Thompson, J. K., Dedrick, R. F., Heinberg, L. J., Calogero,

chology & Psychotherapy, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1974. Advance online

R. M.,. . . & Swami, V. (2015). Development and validation of the Sociocultural publication

T.L. Tylka, A.C. Iannantuono / Body Image 17 (2016) 67–81 81

Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire-4 (SATAQ-4). Psychological Assess- Tylka, T. L., Calogero, R. M., & Daníelsdóttir, S. (2015). Is intuitive eating the same as

ment, 27, 54–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037917 ﬂexible dietary control? Their links to each other and well-being could provide

Smolak, L., & Cash, T. F. (2011). Future challenges for body image science, practice, an answer. Appetite, 95, 166–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.07.004

and prevention. In T. F. Cash & L. Smolak (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of science, Tylka, T. L., & Kroon Van Diest, A. M. (2013). The Intuitive Eating Scale-2: Item reﬁne-

practice, and prevention (2nd ed., pp. 471–478). New York: Guilford Press. ment and psychometric evaluation with college women and men. Journal of

Stice, E. (2002). Risk and maintenance factors for eating pathology: A meta-analytic Counseling Psychology, 60, 137–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030893

review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 825–848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033- Tylka, T. L., & Kroon Van Diest, A. M. (2015). Protective factors in the development of

2909.128.5.825 eating disorders. In L. Smolak & M. P. Levine (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of eating

Stice, E., Rohde, P., & Shaw, H. (2013). The Body Project: A dissonance-based eating dis- disorders (Vol. 1) (pp. 430–444). New York: Wiley & Sons Ltd.

order prevention intervention (Updated ed., Facilitator guide). New York: Oxford Tylka, T. L., Russell, H. L., & Neal, A. A. (2015). Self-compassion as a moderator of

University Press. thinness-related pressures’ associations with thin-ideal internalization and dis-

Swami, V., Campana, A. N. N. B., Fereirra, L., Barrett, S., Harris, A. S., & Tavares, M. C. G. ordered eating. Eating Behaviors, 17, 23–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.

C. F. (2011). The Acceptance of Cosmetic Surgery Scale: Initial examination of its 2014.12.009

factor structure and correlates among Brazilian adults. Body Image, 8, 179–185. Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. L. (2015a). A positive complement [Special series].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2011.01.001 Body Image, 14, 115–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.04.002

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. L. (2015b). The Body Appreciation Scale: Item

MA: Allyn & Bacon. reﬁnement and psychometric evaluation. Body Image, 12, 53–67. http://dx.doi.

Thompson, J. K., & Stice, E. (2001). Thin-ideal internalization: Mounting evidence org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.09.006

for a new risk factor for body-image disturbance and eating pathology. Current Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. L. (2015c). What is and what is not positive body

Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 181–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467- image? Conceptual foundations and construct deﬁnition [Special series]. Body

8721.00144 Image, 14, 118–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.04.001

Tiggemann, M. (2015). Considerations of positive body image across various social Walsh, W. B., & Betz, N. E. (2001). Tests and assessment (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River,

identities and special populations [Special series]. Body Image, 14, 168–176. NJ: Prentice Hall.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.03.002 Wasylkiw, L., MacKinnon, A. L., & MacLellan, A. M. (2012). Exploring the link between

Tylka, T. L. (2011). Positive psychology perspectives on body image. In T. F. Cash & self-compassion and body image in university women. Body Image, 9, 236–245.

L. Smolak (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of science, practice, and prevention (2nd http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2012.01.007

ed., pp. 56–64). New York: Guilford Press. Webb, J. B., Fiery, M. F., & Jafari, N. (2016). “You better not leave me shaming!” Con-

Tylka, T. L. (2012). Positive psychology perspective on body image. In T. F. Cash (Ed.), ditional indirect effect analyses of anti-fat attitudes, body shame, and fat talk as a

Encyclopedia of body image and human appearance (Vol. 2) (pp. 657–663). San function of self-compassion in college women. (submitted for publication).

Diego, CA: Academic Press. Webb, J. B., Wood-Barcalow, N. L., & Tylka, T. L. (2015). Assessing positive body

Tylka, T. L., Annunziato, R. A., Burgard, D., Daníelsdóttir, S., Shuman, E., Davis, C., image: Contemporary approaches and future directions [Special series]. Body

& Calogero, R. M. (2014). The weight-inclusive vs. weight-normative approach Image, 14, 130–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.03.010

to health: Evaluating the evidence for prioritizing well-being over weight loss. Wood-Barcalow, N. L., Tylka, T. L., & Augustus-Horvath, C. L. (2010). “But I like my

Journal of Obesity, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/983495 body”: Positive body image characteristics and a holistic model for young-adult

Tylka, T. L., & Augustus-Horvath, C. L. (2011). Fighting self-objectiﬁcation in pre- women. Body Image, 7, 106–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2010.01.

vention and intervention contexts. In R. M. Calogero, S. Tantleff-Dunn & J. K. 001

Thompson (Eds.), Self-objectiﬁcation in women: Causes, consequences, and coun- Wolf, N. (1991). The beauty myth. New York: Morrow.

teractions (pp. 187–214). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.