| Literature DB >> 28814743 |
Jean-Luc Jucker1,2, Tracey Thornborrow3,4, Ulrik Beierholm5, D Michael Burt5, Robert A Barton6, Elizabeth H Evans7, Mark A Jamieson8, Martin J Tovée4, Lynda G Boothroyd9.
Abstract
Television consumption influences perceptions of attractive female body size. However, cross-cultural research examining media influence on body ideals is typically confounded by differences in the availability of reliable and diverse foodstuffs. 112 participants were recruited from 3 Nicaraguan villages that differed in television consumption and nutritional status, such that the contribution of both factors could be revealed. Participants completed a female figure preference task, reported their television consumption, and responded to several measures assessing nutritional status. Communities with higher television consumption and/or higher nutritional status preferred thinner female bodies than communities with lower television consumption and/or lower nutritional status. Bayesian mixed models estimated the plausible range of effects for television consumption, nutritional status, and other relevant variables on individual preferences. The model explained all meaningful differences between our low-nutrition villages, and television consumption, after sex, was the most likely of these predictors to contribute to variation in preferences (probability mass >95% when modelling only variables with zero-order associations with preferences, but only 90% when modelling all possible predictors). In contrast, we found no likely link with nutritional status. We thus found evidence that where media access and nutritional status are confounded, media is the more likely predictor of body ideals.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28814743 PMCID: PMC5559456 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-08653-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Study design.
| Nutritional status | ||
|---|---|---|
| High | Low | |
|
| ||
| High | Village A | Village B |
| Low | n/a | Village C |
Means and standard deviations of the main variables of the study. Age range for Village A, B and C was 17-60, 15–74, and 16–77, respectively.
| All | Village A | Village B | Village C | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Valid N | 110 | 42 | 39 | 29 |
| % female | 45 | 48 | 44 | 41 |
| % Garifuna | 76 | 95 | 55 | 79 |
| Acculturation | 11.72 (1.81) | 11.77 (1.94) | 12.12 (2.16) | 11.10 (0.49) |
| Age (years) | 30.91 (13.11) | 27.38 (9.68) | 34.58 (14.47) | 31.10 (14.51) |
| BMI | 25.74 (6.28) | 26.03 (7.53) | 26.63 (5.63) | 24.05 (4.78) |
| Diet quality | 68.22 (13.24) | 75.07 (12.84) | 64.44 (10.05) | 63.39 (13.78) |
| Earnings ($) | 1,296 (1,259) | 1,594 (1,272) | 1,473 (1,401) | 710 (806) |
| Economic Score | 13.49 (5.66) | 17.28 (4.88) | 12.51 (4.59) | 9.31 (4.52) |
| Education | 8.35 (3.37) | 9.59 (2.55) | 8.28 (3.04) | 6.65 (4.12) |
| Food insecurity | 3.37 (1.59) | 2.48 (1.53) | 4.01 (1.56) | 3.79 (1.11) |
| Hunger | 4.61 (0.69) | 4.90 (0.29) | 4.35 (0.81) | 4.55 (0.78) |
| Peak BMI preference | 26.88 (3.90) | 25.15 (3.11) | 27.03 (4.15) | 29.19 (3.42) |
| Size of last meal | 1.48 (0.57) | 1.85 (0.45) | 1.58 (0.59) | 1.48 (0.57) |
| TV consumption (hrs/week) | 11.14 (8.18) | 15.41 (7.46) | 12.15 (7.29) | 3.61 (4.42) |
| Time since last meal (hrs) | 3.89 (3.33) | 3.55 (2.87) | 4.36 (3.65) | 3.73 (3.53) |
| WHR | 0.86 (0.07) | 0.86 (0.08) | 0.86 (0.06) | 0.85 (0.05) |
Figure 1Cubic regression functions for the relationship between stimulus BMI and mean attractiveness rating by location (Village A: red line/lozenges; Village B: green line/triangles; Village C: blue line/circles).
Figure 2Violin plot of the 8 fixed effect regression coefficients (beta) of the mixed effects model where participants are clustered within villages. The red cross indicates the mean of each distribution, while the square is the median. Predictors: 1. Diet score, 2. Earnings, 3. Economic score, 4. Education (years), 5. Food insecurity, 6. Sex, 7. Size of last meal, 8. TV consumption (hours).
Effect size and intercept estimates for both mixed effect linear models. Fixed effect estimates show un-signed percentage probability mass for effect size away from the null line for ease of comparison.
| Model 1 | Model 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed effects | Diet quality | 0.705 | 0.653 |
| Earnings | 0.922 | 0.918 | |
| Economic score | 0.624 | 0.580 | |
| Education | 0.932 | 0.875 | |
| Food insecurity | 0.694 | 0.755 | |
| Sex | 0.999 | 0.998 | |
| Size of last meal | 0.785 | 0.777 | |
| Television consumption | 0.954 | 0.900 | |
| Acculturation | 0.733 | ||
| Age | 0.630 | ||
| Hunger | 0.834 | ||
| Time since last meal | 0.715 | ||
| zBMI | 0.643 | ||
| zWHR | 0.704 | ||
| Intercepts | Location A | 25.687 | 25.518 |
| Location B | 27.174 | 27.280 | |
| Location C | 28.207 | 28.322 |
See Fig. 2 for directional estimates.