Body Image 9 (2012) 126130

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Body Image

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/

Gender and racial/ethnic differences in body imastudents

Meghan M. Gillena,, Eva S. Lefkowitzb

a Division of Social Sciences, 1600 Woodland Road, The Pennsylvania State University, Abington, PA 19001, Ub Department of Human Development and Family Studies, S-110 Henderson Building, The Pennsylvania Stat

a r t i c l

Article history:Received 21 DReceived in re16 SeptemberAccepted 18 S

Keywords:Body image deLongitudinal dCollege studenGenderRace/ethnicity

inalmfema%) coand rage de appr time went ma

Introduction

The early part of collegemaybe important for body imagedevel-opment. Students often make crucial decisions about their healthand social lclose quartesize appearsports teamForan, & Bothe campusadult respoexplorationattitudes ounhealthyindividuals

This reseatute of Child HWolhwill EndGillen. We graciela EspinosaLoken, Christestudy design,also thank Methoughtful com

CorresponE-mail add

(E.S. Lefkowitz

attitudes toward their body and appearance may transition duringthis time.

In the current study, we examine changes in three aspects ofbody imageduring the early part of college. Therst twoaspects are

1740-1445/$ doi:10.1016/j.ife independently of direct adult supervision. Living inrs with peers and joining campus groups that empha-ance or unhealthy eating habits (e.g., sororities, certains) may increase appearance-related concerns (Basow,okwala, 2007; Milligan & Pritchard, 2006). Moreover,environment may allow students freedom from somensibilities (Arnett, 2000), heightening the potential for. Students who are exploring may develop unhealthyr behaviors with respect to the body, such as eatingfoods, binge drinking, or developing friendships withwho are concerned about their looks. In turn, their

rch was supported by grant R01 HD 41720 from the National Insti-ealth and Human Development to Eva S. Lefkowitz, and the Joachimowment in Human Development and Family Studies to Meghan M.tefully acknowledge Jill Boelter, Tanya Boone, Amber Curtin, Gra--Hernandez, Stephanie Hensen, Shelley Hosterman, Sophia Khan, Ericn Mannino, Shevaun Neupert, and Cindy Shearer for their help withdata scoring and entering, data cleaning, and statistical analyses. Wegan Patrick, the editors, and two anonymous reviewers for theirments on earlier versions of this manuscript.

ding author. Tel.: +1 215 881 7478; fax: +1 215 881 7623.resses: mmg204@psu.edu (M.M. Gillen), EXL20@psu.edu).

evaluative, and include appearance evaluation, which representsevaluation of overall physical appearance, and body areas satisfac-tion, which captures satisfaction with different areas of the body(Cash, 2000). The third aspect, appearance orientation, is the extentto which individuals are cognitively and behaviorally invested intheir looks, and is non-evaluative (Cash, 2000). In particular, wefocus on whether these three aspects change differentially by gen-der and racial/ethnic group.

Appearance Evaluation/Satisfaction

We examine the evaluation/satisfaction component becausebody satisfaction is linked to self-esteem, depression, and eatingdisorders (Frost & McKelvie, 2004; Polivy & Herman, 2002; Siegel,2002). Previous studies that address change over time in this com-ponent of body image tend to focus on body dissatisfaction inadolescents. For example, some work shows that adolescent girlsexperience an increase in body dissatisfaction (Bearman, Presnell,Martinez, & Stice, 2006; Eisenberg, Neumark-Sztainer, & Paxton,2006), stability (Jones, 2004; Schooler, 2008), or a decline in dissat-isfaction forhigh school girls transitioning intoemergingadulthood(Eisenberg et al., 2006). Among adolescent boys, results are mixedas well. Some studies illustrate a decline in body dissatisfactionduring adolescence (Bearman et al., 2006; Jones, 2004), but another

see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.bodyim.2011.09.004e i n f o

ecember 2010vised form2011eptember 2011

velopmentesignts

a b s t r a c t

In the present studywe used longitudpart of college. Students (N=390; 54%can (27%), andEuropeanAmerican (41at college. There were overall genderboth stability and change in body imamore positive, whereasmale studentsbody areas satisfaction increased oveorientation did not change, and therExperiences in the college environmelocate /bodyimage

ge development among college

nited Statese University, University Park, PA 16802, United States

ethods to examine body image development during the earlyle) who identied as African American (32%), Latino/a Ameri-mpleted surveysduring their rst, second, and third semesterscial/ethnic differences in all three aspects of body image, andvelopment. Female students appearance evaluation becameearance evaluation showed no signicant change. Individualse, but remained stable when controlling for BMI. Appearancere no racial/ethnic differences in body image development.y play a role in these trends.

2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

M.M. Gillen, E.S. Lefkowitz / Body Image 9 (2012) 126130 127

study showed an overall increase in body dissatisfaction (althoughpatterns differed by initial BMI and change in BMI, as well asracial/ethnic group; Eisenberg et al., 2006).

Longitudinal research on adolescents has also focused onracial/ethnithat Africadissatisfactcans girls (Rodin, 2000Americansbeginning iAfrican Amfaction thanmiddle adol& Neumark

Here, weevaluationearly emergto examinewomen fromcapture devous studiesdifferences1998; Clark2006;Ricciaof no studiestruct in colby gender a

Past reserelated conindex (BMI)eating patte(Cooley, Togests that sin BMI duriHoffman, PHull, Kneehunhealthy fto store un& Story, 20BMI is assoclege studenstudents wiless satise

Appearanc

There isorientationcism and d2001; Petrstruct, self-in womenandmore regroups (Heimportant tresearch onand racial/e2006), but wcollege stud

It is pothe early p(Fredricksoviews womassume this

self-objectication, women repeatedly self-monitor their physicalappearance, as if assuming an outsiders view of how they look.Although not predicted by objectication theory (Fredrickson &Roberts, 1997), recent research indicates thatmen are also vulnera-

elf-othatmenhoFredrient.

ch Q

doearanlleg

chanappe

pant

a arch int, anestioancerticuEur

pantan,taineAmudena Aman Aeac

1=T1ngednterationnt mespoationor betsmpporeedLatin9.44,ettinxt twwashe oompTo exetedlyticpeci34) =34) =lysein allc differences in body dissatisfaction. One study foundn American girls had a less steep increase in bodyion from ages 11 to 16 than did European Ameri-Striegel-Moore, Schreiber, Lo, Crawford, Obarzanek, &). In another study, African Americans and Europeandid not differ in body dissatisfaction in a 5-year spann early adolescence (approximately ages 1318) butericans experienced less of an increase in body dissatis-did European Americans in a 5-year span beginning inescence (approximately ages 1621; Paxton, Eisenberg,-Sztainer, 2006).build on past work by examining whether appearance

and body areas satisfaction change or remain stable ining adulthood.Weuse a short-term longitudinal designchanges in body image in a large sample of men anddifferent racial/ethnic groups. This design allows us to

elopment during a time of possibly rapid change. Previ-have reported cross-sectional gender and racial/ethnicin appearance evaluation and body satisfaction (Altabe,et al., 2005; Gillen & Lefkowitz, 2006; Grabe & Hyde,rdelli,McCabe,Williams,&Thompson, 2007).Weknows that have examined longitudinal changes in this con-lege students, including how developmentmight differnd racial/ethnic group.arch has, however, examined longitudinal changes instructs, such as eating behavior and weight/body mass. One study found that for female students,maladaptiverns remain stable during the rst 20 months of collegeray, Valdez, & Tee, 2007). However, other work sug-tudents tend to gain weight and experience an increaseng the early part of college (Gillen & Lefkowitz, 2011;olicastro, Quick, & Lee, 2006; Morrow, Heesch, Dinger,ans, & Fields, 2006). Students report that campusesofferood options (Cluskey & Grobe, 2009), and they tendhealthy food items in their dormitory rooms (Nelson09), which may in part explain this trend. Given thatiated with body dissatisfaction in male and female col-ts (Yates, Edman, & Aruguete, 2004), we expect thatll evaluate their appearance less positively and becomed with their bodies over time.

e Orientation

less research on constructs related to appearance. Appearance orientation is associated with neuroti-isordered eating in women (Davis, Dionne, & Shuster,ie, Greenleaf, Reel, & Carter, 2009). A related con-objectication, is linked to lower math performance(Fredrickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, & Twenge, 1998),cently, in men and women from different racial/ethnicbl, King, & Lin, 2004). Given these associations, it iso examine trends in appearance orientation. Previousappearance orientation shows cross-sectional genderthnic differences (Clark et al., 2005; Gillen & Lefkowitz,e know of no longitudinal studies on this variable inents.ssible that appearance orientation increases duringart of college. According to objectication theory

n & Roberts, 1997) women exist in a culture thatens bodies as sexual objects and teaches women tosame perspective on their own bodies. As a result of

ble to sexpectand wopeers wways (ance ocollege

Resear

1. Howappof co

2. Doand

Partici

Datresearinteracthat quappearthis painantlyparticiAmericWe obAfricanyear stLatino/Europebers in(Timewho raously eexplorronmeadult rexplortudesstudenfewer o52% ag54% of844) =based sthe nesation

Of t(95%) cat T3.complall anaicant. S2(1, 42(2, 4

Anapatedbjectication in certain situations (Hebl et al., 2004).Weself-objecticationwill be particularly relevant formenwho are beginning college, as they are exposed to new

may gaze at and evaluate them in sexually objectifyingrickson & Roberts, 1997). Thus, individuals appear-ation may increase over their rst several semesters at

uestions

appearance evaluation, body areas satisfaction, andce orientation change across the rst three semesterse?ges in appearance evaluation, body areas satisfaction,arance orientation vary by gender and race/ethnicity?

Method

s and Procedures

e from a larger study described to participants astended to examine how college aged men and womend what their attitudes are like. Participants were toldnnaires included a range of topics, including physical, but were not aware of the specics of the topic oflar study. The study was conducted at a large, predom-opean American university (total enrollment durings rst semester was 4% African American, 3% Latino/aand 81% European American) in the Northeast USA.d contact information from the registrars ofce for allerican, Latino/a American, and European American rstts. We then mailed letters to all African American anderican students, as well as a randomly selected 9% ofmerican students (to obtain approximately equal num-h racial/ethnic group) in September of their rst year, Fall 2002). We only recruited traditional age studentsfrom 17 to 19 years old. These students are simultane-

ing college and emerging adulthood, a periodmarkedbyin multiple domains (Arnett, 2000). The campus envi-ay allow emerging adult students to be free of somensibilities (Arnett, 2000), heightening the potential for. Exploration may include developing unhealthy atti-haviors with respect to the body. Non-traditional ageayhavemore family andwork responsibilities, and thus,rtunities for exploration. Of the 844 contacted students,to participate, including 58% of African Americans,o/a Americans, and 46% of European Americans, 2(2,p< .01. Participants completed a survey in a classroom-g andwere invited to complete the survey again duringo semesters (T2- Spring 2003, T3- Fall 2003). Compen-$25, $30, and $35 for each time point, respectively.riginal 434 students who completed surveys at T1, 414leted surveys at T2, and 390 (90%) completed surveysamine attrition biases, we compared individuals whosurveys at T3 (N=390) to those who did not (N=44) onvariables. Twoof the two2 and four t-testswere signif-cally, retained participants were less likely to bemale,8.05, p< .01, Latino/a American, and African American,7.28, p< .05.

s are on the 390 students (54% female) who partici-three waves. They ranged in age from 18.49 to 20.81

128 M.M. Gillen, E.S. Lefkowitz / Body Image 9 (2012) 126130

Table 1Mean scores on body image at Times 1, 2, and 3.

T1 T2 T3 F F F FM (SE) M (SE) M (SE) (gender) (race/ethnicity) (time) (timegender)

AppearanceTotal samp .21*

Male studFemale stu

Body areas sTotal samp .79***

AppearanceTotal samp .39***

NoteT: Time. he Fs agender (.01); B rancebetween time re not

* p< .05.** p< .01*** p< .001.

years (M=1M=19.57, Sican (n=12female), andents had atime pointM=24.07, SCenters forstudents in

Measures

Body imthe Multid2000), a mecollege studet al., 2005extent towh(e.g., sevenResponse oagree. Bodyuals are sathair, midranging fromorientationioral investifmy groomappearancesubscale ofSelf-Evaluafunctional tResponses1=denitelyability for apbody areasappearanceisfactory an

We perfquestions othese chantime as a wbetween-pedependent

appece/etore

47, Sansance/a Am(ps >. ToOVAe ecamwe point.fer (pthanhe bder,66, Semald thith5) antrastatisfatisfheANainets (Mancets rerien30, Sevaluationle 3.55 (0.04) 3.53 (0.04) 3.58 (0.04) 4

ents 3.68 (0.06) 3.60 (0.06) 3.63 (0.06)dents 3.43 (0.06) 3.46 (0.06) 3.54 (0.06)

atisfactionle 3.53 (0.03) 3.53 (0.03) 3.58 (0.03) 12

orientationle 3.41 (0.04) 3.41 (0.03) 3.40 (0.04) 32

Due to missing data, sample size ranged from N=378 to 380. Effect sizes (2) for tody Areas Satisfactiongender (.03), race/ethnicity (.02), and time (.01); and Appeaand race/ethnicity and three-way interactions were nonsignicant and therefore a

9.50, SD=0.40; females, M=19.44, SD=0.39; males,D=0.41). Thirty twopercent identied as AfricanAmer-4, 55% female), 27% as Latino/a American (n=107, 55%d 41% as European American (n=159, 54% female). Stu-n average BMI in the upper range of normal at each(T1: M=23.66, SD=4.50; T2: M=23.99, SD=4.36; T3:D=4.56; overall range 13.3946.17), as dened by theDisease Control and Prevention (2011). At T1, 99% ofthe sample lived in a campus dormitory.

age. We assessed three aspects of body image, all fromimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire (Cash,asure with considerable psychometric support amongents (e.g., Cash,Morrow,Hrabosky, & Perry, 2004; Clark). The appearance evaluation subscale measures theich individuals feelphysically attractiveorunattractive

items, Most peoplewould considerme good-looking).ptions range from 1=denitely disagree to 5=denitelyareas satisfaction assesses the extent to which individ-ised with various parts of their body (e.g., nine items,torso). Participants report their agreement on a scale1= very dissatised to5= very satised. The appearance

subscale assesses the degree of cognitive and behav-ment in appearance (e.g., 12 items, I am self-consciousing isnt right). It captures a relatively benign aspect ofinvestment, more similar to the Motivational Saliencethe Appearance Schemas Inventory-Revised than thetive Salience subscale, which assesses a more dys-ype of investment (Cash, Melnyk, & Hrabosky, 2004).on the appearance orientation subscale range from

Forand rawere m(M=3.AmericappearLatinogroupgenderthe ANThe timwhobeNext,ence pnot diflower

In tfor gen(M=3.than frevealeised wSE=0.0ple conareas sareas s

In tcantmstudenappearhoc tesmore o(M=3.disagree to5=denitely agree. Internal consistency reli-pearance evaluation (T1,= .88; T2,= .90; T3,= .90),satisfaction (T1, = .78; T2, = .80; T3, = .81), andorientation (T1, = .87; T2, = .88; T3, = .88) was sat-d comparable to Cash (2000).

Results

ormed mixed model ANOVAs to address our researchf whether body image changes over time and whetherges vary by gender and race/ethnicity. We enteredithin-person factor and gender and race/ethnicity asrson factors. The three facets of body image were thevariables.

did not diffemain effect

Becausestudents (Yabove as mreported efof the timesignicant,

During tsocial and eparents, liv3.42* 1.99 5.22**

3.38* 4.42* 0.07

3.65* 0.13 1.00

re: Appearance Evaluationgender (.01), race/ethnicity (.02), time xOrientationgender (.08), race/ethnicity (.02). Two-way interactionsreported.

arance evaluation, there were main effects of genderhnicity (see Table 1). Male students (M=3.63, SE=0.06)satised with their appearance than female studentsE=0.05). Tukey post hoc tests revealed that African(M=3.69, SE=0.07) were more satised with theirthan European Americans (M=3.46, SE=0.06, p< .05).ericans (M=3.51, SE=0.07) did not differ from either.05). There was also an interaction between time andfollow up on the time x gender effect, we performedseparately by gender (removing gender as a factor).

ffect was signicant only for female students (p< .01),e increasingly satisedwith their appearanceover time.erformed simple contrast tests with T1 as the refer-Female students T1 and T2 appearance evaluation did> .05), but T1 appearance evaluation was signicantlyT3 (p< .01).ody areas satisfaction model, there were main effectsrace/ethnicity, and time (see Table 1). Male studentsE=0.05) were more satised with areas of their bodye students (M=3.44, SE=0.04). Tukey post hoc testsatAfricanAmericans (M=3.66, SE=0.06)weremore sat-areas of their body than European Americans (M=3.49,d Latino/a Americans (M=3.49, SE=0.06; ps < .05). Sim-tests using T1 as the reference point revealed that bodyaction at T1 did not differ from T2 (p> .05), but bodyaction at T1 was signicantly lower than at T3 (p< .05).OVAonappearanceorientation, results showed signi-ffects for gender and race/ethnicity (seeTable1). Female=3.59, SE=0.04) were more oriented toward theirthan male students (M=3.22, SE=0.05). Tukey post

vealed that African Americans (M=3.50, SE=0.06) wereted toward their appearance than European AmericansE=0.05, p< .05). Latino/a Americans (M=3.42, SE=0.06)

r from either group (ps > .05). Therewere no signicants of or interactions with time.BMI is associated with body dissatisfaction in collegeates et al., 2004), we performed the analyses describedixed model ANCOVAs, controlling for BMI at T1. Thefects were the same for all variables with the exceptioneffect for body areas satisfaction which was no longerF(2, 734) =1.10, p> .05.

Discussion

heearlypart of college, students experience anumberofnvironmental changes, including living away from theiring in close quarters with same- and other-sex peers,

M.M. Gillen, E.S. Lefkowitz / Body Image 9 (2012) 126130 129

and increased independence in daily living and decision makingabout all domains, including health. Although these changes havethe potential to impact body image, few studies employ longi-tudinal designs to examine body image development during thistime. In thdesign to esemesters ochange in bation/satisfparticularlyremained s

Studentsappearancetaking courthe media alems, or aftepositive bodsmaller higsure to peoHowever, atrend towanding sugcollege mabody areasBMI duringappearancewith and w

Despiteuation remappearanceance evaluremained losectional wwith this sacation theorculturally oobjecticatand thus toalso show thpositively tareas of theicans. Africthan Europe2004), andble ideas ofNichter, Nicthese prefertudes about

In contraappearancevious reseaexpected thearly part ocognitionstime, thesedent who aaboutwaysthe social rerole in alter

Althoughthere weresimilar toLefkowitz,orientation(Fredricksothe larger c

appearance. Results also showed thatAfricanAmericans hadhigherappearance orientation than European Americans. Research onAfrican American girls suggests that their physical appearanceserves adual function: to express individuality and to communicate

ge oThusecaufricaan guty (roomis attrd ofan wt necy im, despnd Euy ins dudormnd p

or stuh shpmees, as the. meng sa

tion

s stuly miculaertaiexte

y imacoll

ing a/ethnment divan Apiteber oody i/ethl woviduemeparter, reart owith

. (19nation. J. (20ugh the, M. Sg attiycholoS. A., F, andbershe present study, we used a short-term longitudinalxamine changes in body image during the rst threef college. Overall, results indicated both stability andody image during this important period. The evalu-

action aspects of body image showed improvement,for female students. However, appearance orientation

table. body areas satisfaction, and for female students only,evaluation, increased. Body image may improve afterses that encourage criticism of unrealistic images innd/or raise awareness of body image and eating prob-r engaging in student activity programs that encouragey image. Also, many students likely transitioned from

h schools to this large university, with increased expo-ple who differ in physical appearance and attitudes.fter controlling for BMI during the rst semester, therd improved body areas satisfaction disappeared. Thisgests that students BMI during their rst semester ofy be an important factor in determining changes insatisfaction over the next two semesters. In contrast,the rst semester did not appear to impact changes inevaluation as ndings for this variable were the sameithout BMI as a control.increases over time, female students appearance eval-ained less positive, on average, than male studentsevaluation. Thus, although female students appear-

ation became more similar to mens, it nonethelesswer. The overall gender difference mirrors past cross-ork (Clark et al., 2005), including cross-sectional workmple (Gillen & Lefkowitz, 2006), and supports objecti-y (Fredrickson&Roberts, 1997). Aswomens bodies arebjectied, women begin to objectify themselves. Self-ionmay leadwomen to be overly critical of their bodies,have poorer appearance evaluation than men. Resultsat African Americans evaluated their appearancemore

han European Americans, and were more satised withir body than European Americans and Latino/a Amer-an American college students desire larger body sizesan American students (Aruguete, Nickleberry, & Yates,African American adolescent girls have more exi-attractiveness than European American girls (Parker,hter, Vuckovic, Sims, & Ritenbaugh, 1995). Because ofences, African Americans may have more positive atti-their appearance.st to the evaluation/satisfaction aspects of body image,orientation showed relative stability. Based on pre-rch on objectication theory (Hebl et al., 2004), weat appearance orientation would increase during thef college. Perhaps students learn appearance-relatedand behaviors at an early age from parents and, overdevelop into stable habits. For example, a female stu-pplies makeup each morning and frequently thinksto improveher appearance is unlikely to stopbecauseofwards of doing so. Going to collegemay play aminimaling these sorts of cognitions and behaviors.appearance orientation did not change over time,

overall group differences by gender and race/ethnicity,prior cross-sectional work on this sample (Gillen &2006). In particular, women had higher appearancethan men, as suggested by objectication theory

n & Roberts, 1997). Women objectify their bodies, asulture does, and thus, are attentive to their physical

an ima1995).ance bAlso, AAmericing beawell-gdencestandaAmericare no

BodThat isican, astabilitchangeing inclubs, aways fresearcdeveloattitudPerhapthe U.Sdeclini

Limita

Thithe onin partonly pshouldof bodbeyondemergraciallyenvirodents aEurope

Desa numined braciallytudinaas indiimprovimage,howevearly pment,

Altabe, MInter

Arnett, Jthro

Arugueteatinof Ps

Basow,surememf their family and community members (Parker et al.,, African Americans may be more attentive to appear-se it reects the image of more than one individual.n American girls and women, as compared to Europeanirls and women, seem to be more exible when den-Parker et al., 1995). For African Americanwomen, beinged, having a unique personal style, and exuding con-ractive, not conforming to someone elses or societysattractiveness (Parker et al., 1995). Therefore, Africanomen may be more concerned with appearance, but

essarily more dissatised with their looks.age development did not differ by racial/ethnic group.ite initial differences, Latino/aAmerican, AfricanAmer-ropean American students showed similar changes orbody image. Students experience common ecologicalring the early part of college (Maggs, 1997), such as liv-itories, and exposure to similar food choices, studentarties. These changes may shape body image in similardents from different racial/ethnic backgrounds. Futureould consider the role of acculturation in body imagent, as students who are less acculturated to U.S. values,nd behaviors may show different patterns of change.se students have had less exposure to the thin ideal india, and with exposure to it during college, may showtisfaction with appearance/body shape.

s and Conclusions

dy has several limitations. Self-report measures wereeans of assessment; self-reported height and weightr may not be accurate. Also, the results of this studyn to the rst two years of college. Future studiesnd these ndings by including multiple assessmentsge development from before the rst year of college toege graduation. Findings should not be applied to earlydults who are not in college and individuals at morenically diverse universities. The effects of the colleget on body imagemay be very different forminority stu-erse universities than for students at a predominantlymerican university.these limitations, this study adds to the literature inf ways. We know of no prior studies that have exam-mage development across the early part of college in anically diverse sample. This study extends prior longi-rk on adolescents by illustrating trends in body imageals enter early emerging adulthood. Results illustratent in the evaluation/satisfaction components of bodyicularly for female students. Appearance orientation,mained stable. Taken together, results suggest that thef college is a dynamic period for body image develop-potential mental and physical health implications.

References

98). Ethnicity and body image: Quantitative and qualitative analysis.al Journal of Eating Disorders, 23, 153159.00). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teense twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469480.., Nickleberry, L. D. & Yates, A. (2004). Acculturation, body image, andtudes amongBlack andWhite college students.NorthAmerican Journalgy, 6, 393404.oran, K. A. & Bookwala, J. (2007). Body objectication, social pres-disordered eating behavior in college women: The role of sororityip. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 394400.

130 M.M. Gillen, E.S. Lefkowitz / Body Image 9 (2012) 126130

Bearman, S. K., Presnell, K., Martinez, E. & Stice, E. (2006). The skinny on body dis-satisfaction: A longitudinal study of adolescent girls and boys. Journal of Youthand Adolescence, 35, 229241.

Cash, T. F. (2000). The Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire users man-ual. Available from the author at .

Cash, T. F.,Melnyk, S. E. &Hrabosky, J. I. (2004). The assessment of body image invest-ment: An extensive revision of the Appearance Schemas Inventory. InternationalJournal of Eating Disorders, 35, 305316.

Cash, T. F., Morrow, J. A., Hrabosky, J. I. & Perry, A. A. (2004). How has body imagechanged? A cross-sectional investigation of college women andmen from 1983to 2001. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 10811089.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). About BMI for adults.

Accessed 18.04.11.

Clark, M. M., Croghan, I. T., Reading, S., Schroeder, D. R., Stoner, S. M., Patten, C. A.,et al. (2005). The relationship of body image dissatisfaction to cigarette smokingin college students. Body Image, 2, 263270.

Cluskey, M. & Grobe, D. (2009). College weight gain and behavior transitions: Maleand femaledifferences. Journal of theAmericanDietetic Association,109, 325329.

Cooley, E., Toray, T., Valdez, N. & Tee, M. (2007). Risk factors for maladaptive eatingpatterns in college women. Eating and Weight Disorders, 12, 132139.

Davis, C., Dionne, M. & Shuster, B. (2001). Physical and psychological correlates ofappearance orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 2130.

Eisenberg,M.E.,Neumark-Sztainer,D.&Paxton, S. J. (2006). Five-year change inbodysatisfaction among adolescents. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 61, 521527.

Fredrickson, B. L. & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectication theory: Toward understand-ing womens lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of WomenQuarterly, 21, 173206.

Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T. A., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M. & Twenge, J. M. (1998). Thatswimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectication, restrained eating,and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 269284.

Frost, J. & McKelvie, S. (2004). Self-esteem and body satisfaction in male and femaleelementary school, high school, and university students. Sex Roles, 51, 4554.

Gillen, M. M. & Lefkowitz, E. S. (2006). Gender role development and body imageamong male and female rst year college students. Sex Roles, 55, 2537.

Gillen, M. M., & Lefkowitz, E. S. (2011). The freshman 15: Trends and predictors ina sample of multiethnic men and women. Eating Behaviors, 4, 261266.

Grabe, S. & Hyde, J. S. (2006). Ethnicity and body dissatisfaction among women inthe United States: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 622640.

Hebl, M. R., King, E. B. & Lin, J. (2004). The swimsuit becomes us all: Ethnicity, gen-der, and vulnerability to self-objectication. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 30, 13221331.

Hoffman, D. J., Policastro, P., Quick, V. & Lee, S. K. (2006). Changes in bodyweight andfat mass of men andwomen in the rst year of college: A study of the freshman15. Journal of American College Health, 55, 4145.

Jones, D. C. (2004). Body image among adolescent girls and boys: A longitudinalstudy. Developmental Psychology, 40, 823835.

Maggs, J. L. (1997). Alcohol use and binge drinking as goal-directed action duringthe transition to postsecondary education. In J. Schulenberg, J. Maggs & K. Hur-relmann (Eds.),Health risks and developmental transitions during adolescence (pp.345371). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Milligan, B. & Pritchard, M. (2006). The relationship between gender, type of sport,body dissatisfaction, self-esteem, and disordered eating behaviors in division Iathletes. Athletic Insight: The Online Journal of Sports Psychology, 8, 3246.

Morrow, M. L., Heesch, K. C., Dinger, M. K., Hull, H. R., Kneehans, A. W. & Fields, D. A.(2006). Freshman 15: Fact or ction? Obesity, 14, 14381443.

Nelson, M. C. & Story, M. (2009). Food environments in university dorms: 20,000calories per dorm room and counting. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,36, 523526.

Parker, S., Nichter, M., Nichter, M., Vuckovic, N., Sims, C. & Ritenbaugh, C. (1995).Body image andweight concerns amongAfricanAmerican andwhite adolescentfemales: Differences that make a difference. Human Organization, 54, 103114.

Paxton, S. J., Eisenberg, M. E. & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2006). Prospective predictorsof body dissatisfaction in adolescent girls and boys: A ve-year longitudinalstudy. Developmental Psychology, 42, 888899.

Petrie, T. A., Greenleaf, C., Reel, J. & Carter, J. (2009). Personality and psychologi-cal factors as predictors of disordered eating among female collegiate athletes.Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment and Prevention, 17, 302321.

Polivy, J. & Herman, C. P. (2002). Causes of eating disorders. Annual Review of Psy-chology, 53, 187213.

Ricciardelli, L. A., McCabe, M. P., Williams, R. J. & Thompson, J. K. (2007). The role ofethnicity and culture in body image and disordered eating amongmales. ClinicalPsychology Review, 27, 582606.

Schooler, D. (2008). Real women have curves: A longitudinal investigation of TVand the body image development of Latina adolescents. Journal of AdolescentResearch, 23, 132153.

Siegel, J.M. (2002). Body image change andadolescent depressive symptoms. Journalof Adolescent Research, 17, 2741.

Striegel-Moore, R. H., Schreiber, G. B., Lo, A., Crawford, P., Obarzanek, E. & Rodin,J. (2000). Eating disorder symptoms in a cohort of 11 to 16-year-old Black andWhite Girls: The NHLBI Growth and Health Study. International Journal of EatingDisorders, 27, 4966.

Yates, A., Edman, J. & Aruguete, M. (2004). Ethnic differences in BMI and body/self-dissatisfaction among Whites, Asian subgroups, Pacic Islanders, and African-Americans. Journal of Adolescent Health, 34, 300307.

Gender and racial/ethnic differences in body image development among college studentsIntroductionAppearance Evaluation/SatisfactionAppearance OrientationResearch QuestionsMethodParticipants and Procedures

MeasuresResultsDiscussionLimitations and ConclusionsReferences