| Literature DB >> 33868129 |
Natalia Solano-Pinto1, Yolanda Sevilla-Vera1, Raquel Fernández-Cézar2, Dunia Garrido3.
Abstract
Body image has been associated with self-care and the assumption of either healthy habits or poor diets and eating disorders. As a vital element in the formation of a positive body image, the role of the family in childhood has been highlighted by a few studies. This study aimed to assess whether children's body dissatisfaction could be predicted by their parents' body dissatisfaction, body mass index (BMI), and approach to change. The sample consisted of 581 participants (366 parents and 215 children). The following instruments were used: anthropometric data, the Brief Scale of Body Dissatisfaction for Children, the IMAGE questionnaire (approach to change and drive for muscularity subscales), and the Eating Disorder Inventory-2 (body dissatisfaction and drive for thinness subscales). The results indicated that 19% of children, 22.8% of mothers, and 70.2% of fathers were overweight or obese. The multiple regression models developed for boys and girls explained 60 and 57% of the variance in body dissatisfaction, respectively. Several variables attributable to the mother (higher approach to change, higher drive for thinness, and higher BMI) and to the boys themselves (drive for muscularity, approach to change, and having a high BMI percentile) predicted a higher level of body dissatisfaction. For girls, only variables regarding themselves (approach to change, age, and BMI percentile) explained their body dissatisfaction. Relationships with the traits of the father were not detected for both models. The influence of sociocultural factors on the construction of gender and the negative consequences of mothers' dieting for aesthetic purposes, on the development of children's body image, are discussed.Entities:
Keywords: body dissatisfaction; childhood; drive for muscularity; drive for thinness; family
Year: 2021 PMID: 33868129 PMCID: PMC8044941 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.650744
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Demographic and clinical characteristics of our families (categorical variables).
| Low (no or primary education) | 3 | 2 |
| Medium (secondary education) | 15 | 7 |
| High (tertiary education) | 135 | 63 |
| Spain | 196 | 91 |
| Morocco | 3 | 1 |
| Other | 7 | 3 |
| Caucasian | 90 | 95 |
| African American | 3 | 1 |
| Other | 2 | 1 |
| Employed | 163 | 76 |
| Housewife | 38 | 18 |
| Student | 1 | 0.5 |
| Single | 7 | 3 |
| Married | 175 | 81 |
| Separated | 18 | 8 |
| Widowed | 1 | 0.5 |
| Upper | 23 | 11 |
| Middle | 90 | 42 |
| Lower | 29 | 13 |
| Low (no or primary education) | 56 | 26 |
| Medium (secondary education) | 13 | 6 |
| High (tertiary education) | 114 | 53 |
| Spain | 180 | 84 |
| Morocco | 3 | 1 |
| Other | 3 | 1 |
| Caucasian | 85 | 40 |
| African American | 3 | 1 |
| Other | 1 | 1 |
| Employed | 172 | 80 |
| Housework | 8 | 4 |
| Retirement | 1 | 0.5 |
| Single | 4 | 2 |
| Married | 174 | 81 |
| Separated | 10 | 5 |
| Upper | 44 | 20 |
| Middle | 90 | 42 |
| Lower | 14 | 7 |
Descriptive statistics for our families (continuous variables).
| Sons ( | |||||
| BMI percentile | 50.47 | 30.64 | 1–99 | – | 1 (1) |
| Body dissatisfaction | 1.03 | 1.88 | –1 to 6 | –1 to 7 | 0 (0) |
| Drive for muscularly | 4.38 | 3.24 | 0–12 | 0–12 | 6 (6) |
| Approach to change | 4.00 | 4.10 | 0–12 | 0–12 | 8 (8) |
| Daughters ( | |||||
| BMI percentile | 57.45 | 31.38 | 1–99 | – | 0 (0) |
| Body dissatisfaction | 0.85 | 1.73 | –1 to 7 | –1 to 7 | 0 (0) |
| Drive for muscularly | 2.24 | 2.71 | 0–12 | 0–12 | 6 (6) |
| Approach to change | 3.09 | 3.32 | 0–12 | 0–12 | 5 (5) |
| Mothers ( | |||||
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.25 | 3.52 | 17.65–40.35 | – | 24 (11) |
| Body dissatisfaction | 16.76 | 8.08 | 0–38 | 0–45 | 16 (7) |
| Drive for muscularly | 2.69 | 2.41 | 0–12 | 0–12 | 32 (15) |
| Drive for thinness | 10.65 | 7.75 | 0–35 | 0–35 | 36 (17) |
| Approach to change | 5.56 | 3.75 | 0–12 | 0–12 | 8 (4) |
| Fathers ( | |||||
| BMI (kg/m2) | 26.65 | 3.17 | 20.06–38.09 | – | 33 (15) |
| Body dissatisfaction | 14.23 | 6.41 | 0–40 | 0–45 | 39 (18) |
| Drive for muscularly | 2.71 | 2.84 | 0–12 | 0–12 | 35 (16) |
| Drive for thinness | 7.83 | 5.42 | 0–26 | 0–35 | 34 (16) |
| Approach to change | 4.92 | 3.79 | 0–12 | 0–12 | 16 (9) |
Pearson correlations between son’s body dissatisfaction with the other variables of interest.
| Son’s variables | (1) Body dissatisfaction | − | ||||||||||
| (2) Drive for muscularly | 0.37* | − | ||||||||||
| (3) Approach to change | 0.59* | 0.47* | − | |||||||||
| Mother’s variables | (4) Body dissatisfaction | 0.34* | 0.09 | 0.23* | − | |||||||
| (5) Drive for muscularly | –0.01 | –0.01 | 0.06 | 0.42* | − | |||||||
| (6) Drive for thinness | 0.42* | 0.18 | 0.30* | 0.67* | 0.58* | − | ||||||
| (7) Approach to change | 0.20* | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.46* | 0.41* | 0.66* | − | |||||
| Father’s variables | (8) Body dissatisfaction | 0.05 | –0.06 | –0.06 | 0.11 | 0.01 | –0.03 | 0.14 | − | |||
| (9) Drive for muscularly | –0.02 | –0.20 | –0.04 | 0.23* | 0.26* | 0.26* | 0.14 | 0.06 | − | |||
| (10) Drive for thinness | 0.13 | –0.07 | –0.01 | 0.10 | 0.16 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.31* | 0.50* | − | ||
| (11) Approach to change | 0.17 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.20 | 0.17 | 0.22* | 0.36* | 0.32* | 0.30* | 0.59* | − |
Linear regression analyses to determine the influence of each predictor on son’s body dissatisfaction.
| Son’s approach to change | 0.146 | 0.045 | 0.002 | 0.35 | 0.056 | 0.236 |
| Son’s drive for muscularity | 0.120 | 0.055 | 0.032 | 0.14 | 0.011 | 0.230 |
| Mother’s body satisfaction | 0.021 | 0.025 | 0.386 | 0.11 | –0.028 | 0.070 |
| Mother’s approach to change | –0.166 | 0.060 | 0.007 | 0.04 | –0.286 | –0.047 |
| Mother’s drive for thinness | 0.059 | 0.029 | 0.044 | 0.18 | 0.002 | 0.117 |
| Son’s age | –0.258 | 0.160 | 0.112 | 0.00 | –0.578 | 0.062 |
| Son’s BMI percentile | 0.012 | 0.006 | 0.029 | 0.24 | 0.001 | 0.024 |
| Mother’s BMI | 0.186 | 0.049 | <0.001 | 0.11 | 0.088 | 0.283 |
FIGURE 1Results from multiple regression analysis for son’s body dissatisfaction. Only significant paths are displayed (p < 0.05) as β coefficients.
Pearson correlations between daughter’s body dissatisfaction with the other variables of interest.
| Daughter’s variables | (1) Body dissatisfaction | − | ||||||||||
| (2) Drive for muscularly | 0.50* | − | ||||||||||
| (3) Approach to change | 0.65* | 0.43* | − | |||||||||
| Mother’s variables | (4) Body dissatisfaction | 0.20* | 0.00 | 0.11 | − | |||||||
| (5) Drive for muscularly | 0.06 | –0.52 | 0.09 | 0.17 | − | |||||||
| (6) Drive for thinness | 0.31* | 0.14 | 0.18 | 0.55* | 0.40* | − | ||||||
| (7) Approach to change | 0.07 | –0.03 | 0.04 | 0.54* | 0.27* | 0.46* | − | |||||
| Father’s variables | (8) Body dissatisfaction | 0.15 | –0.12 | –0.01 | 0.13 | –0.03 | 0.13 | 0.17 | − | |||
| (9) Drive for muscularly | 0.19 | 0.21 | 0.13 | 0.14 | 0.30* | 0.41* | 0.30* | 0.06 | − | |||
| (10) Drive for thinness | 0.17 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.20 | 0.18 | 0.43* | 0.28* | 0.31* | 0.55* | − | ||
| (11) Approach to change | 0.02 | 0.07 | –0.10 | 0.16 | 0.15 | 0.25* | 0.38* | 0.24* | 0.37* | 0.60* | − |
Linear regression analyses to determine the influence of each predictor on daughter’s body dissatisfaction.
| Daughter’s drive for muscularity | 0.128 | 0.068 | 0.063 | 0.25 | –0.007 | 0.264 |
| Daughter’s approach to change | 0.224 | 0.053 | <0.001 | 0.43 | 0.1117 | 0.330 |
| Mother’s body dissatisfaction | 0.014 | 0.022 | 0.527 | 0.04 | –0.030 | 0.058 |
| Mother’s drive for thinness | 0.048 | 0.025 | 0.063 | 0.09 | –0.003 | 0.098 |
| Daughter’s age | 0.327 | 0.155 | 0.038 | 0.02 | 0.018 | 0.636 |
| Daughter’s BMI percentile | 0.012 | 0.005 | 0.014 | 0.10 | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Mother’s BMI | –0.042 | 0.041 | 0.311 | 0.01 | –0.124 | 0.040 |
FIGURE 2Results from multiple regression analysis for daughter’s body dissatisfaction. Only significant paths are displayed (p < 0.05) as β coefficients.