| Literature DB >> 35446909 |
Yi Wu1, Jessica M Alleva1, Nick J Broers2, Sandra Mulkens1,3.
Abstract
Around the world, an increasing number of people, predominantly women, are choosing to undergo cosmetic surgery-despite the associated health risks. This study aimed to promote a better cross-cultural understanding of the correlates and predictors of favorable attitudes toward cosmetic surgery among women in China (an Eastern country where cosmetic surgery is increasing most rapidly) and the Netherlands (a Western country). Questionnaire data were obtained from 763 adult women; 245 were Chinese women in China (Mage = 29.71), 265 were Chinese women in the Netherlands (Mage = 25.81), and 253 were Dutch women (Mage = 29.22). Facial appearance concerns and materialistic belief were significant predictors of favorable attitudes towards cosmetic surgery for all three cultural groups. Body appreciation was a significant positive predictor among Chinese women in both China and the Netherlands, whereas age and beauty-ideal internalization were significant positive predictors only among Chinese women in China. The findings and their implications are discussed with respect to the characteristics of Chinese culture that could explain the identified differences between Chinese and Dutch women.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35446909 PMCID: PMC9022849 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267451
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.752
Demographic characteristics.
| Chinese women in China ( | Chinese women in the Netherlands ( | Dutch women in the Netherlands ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic Characteristics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 29.71 | 6.94 | 25.81 | 5.21 | 29.22 | 13.50 |
|
| 20.93 | 3.66 | 20.52 | 3.24 | 23.78 | 4.45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||||
| | 39 | 15.9 | 18 | 7.6 | 20 | 8.8 |
| | 206 | 84.1 | 219 | 92.4 | 208 | 91.2 |
|
| ||||||
| | 196 | 80.0 | 66 | 27.3 | 88 | 38.1 |
| | 49 | 20.0 | 176 | 72.7 | 143 | 61.9 |
|
| ||||||
| | 175 | 71.4 | 120 | 49.6 | 141 | 61.0 |
| | 70 | 28.6 | 122 | 50.4 | 90 | 39.0 |
|
| ||||||
| | 1 | .4 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 2.6 |
| | 8 | 3.3 | 7 | 2.9 | 51 | 22.4 |
| | 196 | 81.3 | 70 | 29.2 | 95 | 41.7 |
| | 30 | 12.4 | 113 | 47.1 | 67 | 29.4 |
| | 6 | 2.5 | 50 | 20.8 | 9 | 3.9 |
|
| ||||||
| | 19 | 7.8 | 36 | 14.9 | 60 | 26 |
| | 174 | 71 | 176 | 72.7 | 143 | 61.9 |
| | 35 | 14.3 | 20 | 8.3 | 22 | 9.5 |
| | 17 | 6.9 | 10 | 4.1 | 6 | 2.6 |
|
| ||||||
| | 156 | 60.2 | ||||
| | 65 | 25.1 | ||||
| | 25 | 9.7 | ||||
| | 13 | 5 | ||||
Note.
* Length of stay in the Netherlands was answered by the Chinese women in the Netherlands only.
Descriptive statistics for measured variables.
| Chinese women in Chinaa | Chinese women in the Netherlandsb | Dutch women in the Netherlandsc | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Cronbach’s |
| Cronbach’s |
| Cronbach’s |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| .96 | 4.71 (1.31)b,c | .93 | 4.21 (1.15)a,c | .94 | 3.73 (1.30)a,b | 37.849 | 2 | 760 | < .001 |
|
| .84 | 3.25 (.71)c | .80 | 3.39 (.65) | .86 | 3.44 (.73)a | 5.056 | 2 | 760 | .007 |
|
| .87 | 2.37 (.65) b,c | .88 | 2.19 (.72) a,c | .90 | 1.84 (.72) a,b | 37.050 | 2 | 760 | < .001 |
|
| .84 | 4.25 (1.05)c | .78 | 4.07 (.98)c | .82 | 4.52 (1.08)a,b | 12.262 | 2 | 760 | < .001 |
|
| .88 | 3.56 (.66)b | .92 | 3.77 (.69)a | .95 | 3.65 (.80) | 5.919 | 2 | 760 | .003 |
|
| .72 | 4.04 (.48)b | .88 | 4.19 (.53)a | .89 | 4.15 (.56) | 5.335 | 2 | 727 | .005 |
|
| .89 | 3.32 (.63) b,c | .81 | 3.11 (.55) a,c | .85 | 2.54 (.67) a,b | 108.225 | 2 | 754 | < .001 |
|
| .76 | 3.35 (.43) | .77 | 3.26 (.51) | .85 | 3.22 (.64) | 3.937 | 2 | 732 | .020 |
|
| .79 | 15.49 (4.35) b,c | .73 | 13.44 (4.20) a,c | .74 | 11.13 (4.44) a,b | 61.064 | 2 | 729 | < .001 |
|
| .90 | 4.33 (1.35) | .87 | 4.31 (1.26) | .90 | 4.40 (1.37) | .269 | 2 | 713 | .764 |
|
| .87 | 10.18 (3.97) | .87 | 9.87 (4.01) | .78 | 9.54 (3.53) | 1.644 | 2 | 712 | .194 |
Note. Superscript notes (a–d) indicate which groups significantly differ from each other (p < .001).
Correlations between variables among Chinese women in China and in the Netherlands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| - | - .15 | .48 | .35 | - .15 | - .08 | .38 | .33 | .22 | .28 | .17 | - .04 |
|
| - .08 | - | - .50 | - .24 | .62 | .39 | - .07 | - .12 | - .04 | - .13 | - .29 | .04 |
|
| .49 | - .55 | - | .41 | - .55 | - .30 | .31 | .30 | .17 | .25 | .35 | - .16 |
|
| .42 | - .15 | .34 | - | - .36 | - .17 | .36 | .47 | .10 | .33 | .18 | - .24 |
|
| - .08 | .71 | - .52 | - .27 | - | .62 | - .11 | - .16 | - .04 | - .17 | - .29 | .16 |
|
| .09 | .20 | - .14 | - .14 | .47 | - | - .05 | - .04 | - .08 | .001 | - .12 | - .04 |
|
| .43 | - .21 | .35 | .57 | - .24 | .004 | - | .40 | .20 | .22 | .08 | - .31 |
|
| .52 | - .04 | .28 | .39 | - .10 | .02 | .39 | - | .10 | .26 | .07 | - .14 |
|
| .34 | - .22 | .36 | .52 | - .38 | - .20 | .43 | .32 | - | .11 | - .06 | .02 |
|
| .32 | - .28 | .32 | .38 | - .26 | .03 | .53 | .19 | .37 | - | .16 | - .10 |
|
| .21 | - .42 | .59 | .17 | - .40 | - .14 | .23 | .11 | .24 | .15 | - | - .04 |
|
| .08 | - .004 | .004 | - .18 | .04 | - .02 | - .08 | - .03 | .02 | - .07 | - .03 | - |
Note. Correlations for Chinese women in China are below the diagonal; correlations for Chinese women in the Netherlands are above the diagonal;
*p < .05;
**p < .01;
***p < .001.
Correlations between variables among Dutch women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| - | |||||||||||
|
| - .20 | - | ||||||||||
|
| .49 | - .55 | - | |||||||||
|
| .37 | - .33 | .36 | - | ||||||||
|
| - .27 | .73 | - .62 | - .49 | - | |||||||
|
| - .16 | .46 | - .35 | - .26 | .59 | - | ||||||
|
| .45 | - .10 | .32 | .44 | - .24 | - .14 | - | |||||
|
| .27 | - .23 | .30 | .47 | - .28 | - .14 | .35 | - | ||||
|
| .27 | - .01 | .24 | .22 | - .19 | - .13 | .28 | .25 | - | |||
|
| .23 | - .16 | .22 | .17 | - .17 | - .08 | .25 | .15 | .05 | - | ||
|
| .22 | - .34 | .49 | .30 | - .49 | - .33 | .19 | .21 | .03 | .06 | - | |
|
| - .12 | .15 | - .21 | - .41 | .29 | .07 | - .36 | - .34 | .02 | - .09 | - .25 | - |
Note.
*p < .05;
**p < .01;
***p < .001.
Multiple regression models for all three cultural groups.
| Unstandardized coefficient | Standardized coefficient | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictors | B | SE |
|
|
|
| Adjusted |
|
|
|
| |||||||||
|
| .465 | .454 | 41.513 | < .001 | |||||
|
| - 4.438 | .781 | - 5.680 | .000 | |||||
|
| .881 | .119 | .436 | 7.414 | .000 | ||||
|
| .448 | .112 | .223 | 4.003 | .000 | ||||
|
| .413 | .112 | .198 | 3.689 | .000 | ||||
|
| .019 | .009 | .098 | 2.056 | .041 | ||||
|
| 1.056 | .159 | .346 | 6.624 | .000 | ||||
|
| |||||||||
|
| .321 | .313 | 40.457 | < .001 | |||||
|
| - .086 | .589 | - .147 | .884 | |||||
|
| .806 | .101 | .513 | 7.947 | .000 | ||||
|
| .267 | .101 | .163 | 2.635 | .009 | ||||
|
| .490 | .113 | .236 | 4.352 | .000 | ||||
|
| |||||||||
|
| .331 | .325 | 61.234 | < .001 | |||||
|
| .862 | .282 | 3.061 | .002 | |||||
|
| .683 | .098 | .383 | 6.980 | .000 | ||||
|
| .632 | .107 | .324 | 5.913 | .000 | ||||
Hierarchical cross-cultural model comparison.
| Change statistics | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Step |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| .647 | .418 | .413 | .418 | 74.661 | 7 | 727 | < .001 |
|
| .663 | .440 | .430 | .022 | 4.654 | 6 | 721 | < .001 |
|
| .665 | .442 | .429 | .002 | .749 | 4 | 717 | .559 |
Note.
aFacial Appearance Concerns, Body Appreciation, Materialistic Belief, Beauty-Ideal Internalization, Age, and indicator variables for identifying cultural group (with Dutch group as reference);
bModel 1 expanded with Interactions between cultural group and Body Appreciation, cultural group and Beauty-Ideal Internalization, and cultural group and Age;
cModel 2 expanded with interactions between cultural group and Facial Appearance concerns, and cultural group and Materialistic Belief.
Regression estimates of model 2.
| Unstandardized coefficients | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | B | SE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| .439 | 51.342 | < .001 | ||||||
|
| 4.184 | .072 | 57.729 | < .001 | ||||
|
| .782 | .067 | .435 | 11.655 | < .001 | |||
|
| .102 | .093 | .056 | 1.097 | .273 | |||
|
| .523 | .068 | .277 | 7.658 | < .001 | |||
|
| .193 | .111 | .078 | 1.743 | .082 | |||
|
| .009 | .004 | .062 | 2.014 | < .05 | |||
|
| - .086 | .101 | - .031 | - .848 | .397 | |||
|
| .113 | .106 | .040 | 1.063 | .288 | |||
|
| .153 | .125 | .048 | 1.226 | .221 | |||
|
| .320 | .130 | .093 | 2.462 | < .05 | |||
|
| .054 | .166 | .012 | .326 | .745 | |||
|
| .833 | .186 | .158 | 4.491 | < .001 | |||
Note.
aThe cultural group by Age interaction proved to be non-significant and was removed.
bAll continuous variables are expressed on centered scales. Binary variables are (0,1) indicator variables for identifying cultural group membership. Dutch group forms the reference group.