Citation
Body image disturbance as a predictive factor of relationship satisfaction among college students

Material Information

Title:
Body image disturbance as a predictive factor of relationship satisfaction among college students
Creator:
Paap, Colleen Elizabeth
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xii, 56 leaves : ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Body image disturbance ( lcsh )
Relationship quality ( lcsh )
College students ( lcsh )
Body image disturbance ( fast )
College students ( fast )
Relationship quality ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves -).
General Note:
Department of Psychology
Statement of Responsibility:
by Colleen Eilzabeth Paap.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
655789701 ( OCLC )
ocn655789701
Classification:
LD1193.L645 2010m P32 ( lcc )

Full Text
BODY IMAGE DISTURBANCE AS A PREDICTIVE FACTOR OF RELATIONSHIP
SATISFACTION AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS
by
Colleen Elizabeth Paap
B.S., Colorado State University, 2006
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
Clinical Psychology
2010


2010 by Colleen Elizabeth Paap
All rights reserved.


This thesis for the Master of Arts
degree by
Colleen Elizabeth Paap
has been approved
by
Rick Gardner
Kevin Everhart


Paap,Colleen, E. (M.A., Clinical Psychology)
Body Image Disturbance as a Predictive Factor of Relationship Satisfaction among College
Students
Thesis directed by Emeritus Professor Rick Gardner
ABSTRACT
The increasing problem of body image dissatisfaction and body size distortion may be a
predictive influence for relationship satisfaction. The present study examines the predictive
ability of variables such as body image dissatisfaction, body size estimation, age, gender
and other demographic factors on relationship satisfaction. In addition, this study includes
both the perception of the respondents body size and the partners body size on relationship
satisfaction. Participants include 282 students from the University of Colorado Denver
currently in a monogamous relationship for at least two months. Participants completed an
anonymous survey sent via Survey Monkey which included demographic items and items
from both the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) and the Body Image Assessment
Scale Body Dimensions (BIAS-BD). Multiple regression analyses were conducted to
determine whether body image disturbance of both the respondents perceptions of
themselves and their partners, as well as age, gender, ethnicity, grade level, and length of
relationship are predictor variables of relationship satisfaction. Overall, body image
dissatisfaction of partners body, body size distortion, and perceived partners relationship
satisfaction were all predictors of relationship satisfaction. Gender differences were
discovered for body image dissatisfaction and body size distortion as well as self-esteem
and frequency of weight loss thoughts. Due to the increasing nature of body image
disturbance in college students, support group programs and supplemental materials in
couples therapy that address body image should be considered to target this population.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis. I recommend its
publication.
Signed
Rick Gardner


DEDICATION PAGE
I dedicate this thesis to my parents Bryce and Kathleen, who gave me unconditional love
and support through my life nurturing all of my talents and skills that have aided in my
current success. I would also like to dedicate this to my husband, Shawn, for his constant
encouragement and patience throughout this entire process.


ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to thank first and foremost my advisor, Dr. Rick Gardner, for his contribution
and support to my research. I also wish to thank all the members of my committee for their
valuable participation and insight.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figures...........................................................viii
Tables...........................................................xi
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION..................................................1
Body Image Disturbance.....................................1
Gender Differences.........................................3
2. METHOD........................................................8
Participants...............................................8
Materials..................................................9
Procedure.................................................11
3. RESULTS......................................................14
Regression................................................20
Respondents Body.......................................20
Partners Perception of Respondents Body...............21
Partners Body..........................................21
4. DISCUSSION...................................................24
Limitaitons................................................28
APPENDIX
A. QUESTIONNAIRE................................................30
B. BDI & RELATIONSHIP SURVEY....................................31
C. HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL......................................52
D. FUNDING FROM DEANS AWARD....................................53
BIBLIOGRAPHY .........................................................54
VI


FIGURES
Figure
2.1 Random Ordered Body Image Assessment Scale Body Dimensions (BIAS-BD) for
Females................................................................x
2.2 Random Ordered Body Image Assessment Scale Body Dimensions (BIAS-BD) for
Males................................................................xi
2.3 Standard BIAS-BD for Males and Females with Body Percentage Deviation
Scale................................................................xii
VIII


TABLES
Table
2.1 List and description of body image related predictor variables for relationship
satisfaction.......................................................................13
3.1 Descriptive statistics of the sample for predictor variables and outcome variable,
including means and standard deviation.............................................17
3.2 Gender differences for body image disturbance and other relationship
factors............................................................................19
3.3 The respondents body image elements as predictors of relationship satisfaction.......
...............................................................................20
3.4 The judgment of partners perception of respondents body image as predictors of
relationship satisfaction for the respondent ...................................21
3.5 The perception of the partners body image as predictors of relationship satisfaction
for the respondent..............................................................23
IX


Female
Figure 2.1 Random Ordered Body Image Assessment Scale Body Dimensions (BIAS-
BD) for Females
x


A ; i. s '.v ^ i
i! A lA.r ;' ; * 7 7 A ; ; ' 7 V. /* :. \. iu i.; \ i f. r \ V t ;;
M = 1; i 1 'il
i y 7 f a y, - \ > .K
t // 7 :> ; / i // f ( - [ -
'1 ar t" ^ 7 7 7 ii J : 'iAr : \ : \ ii: 1 : ; - iu
Jilt Tit til i ; : :: 3 t 3 t ! 1! v.V 'O \.v. .7
Male
Figure 2.2 Random Ordered Body Image Assessment Scale Body Dimensions (BIAS-
BD) for Males
XI


A r: n
/' *\ ^ A
oj § yiy
li 'j !". / V i Sm- i|;; C' K'i l- v-_

-^0 -35 -30
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Male
A, A A A / ^ A A 'A A a / s A- A f\ Pi A A A A A
A tS \\ i/, ,v. & if iv iii U1 \ i?? ;t: i\ kit A 1* Vt i! (fi :1# k A A -j. $ A ^ A ft; Si §f! Si! f
i>: Ilf ill \\ Ai .-.A <->o Ak <> I ill 3 vf%. * \ / ii iif & i|! W W \|j A 2W. i(; !!/ i|l if \!! cXS 2As
W+4+-
I i ! i
-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15
-10
-5 0 5
Femae
10 15 20 25 30 35
Figure 2.3 Standard BIAS-BD for Males and Females with Body Percentage Deviation
Scale
XII


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Body Image Disturbance
The issue of body image dissatisfaction and body image distortion is a
growing problem especially among college-aged individuals as it may lead to
eating disorders. Many factors contribute to an individual feeling dissatisfied
with his or her body size and/or shape. These factors can be related to the
individuals distorted thoughts about the self or negative emotions. These
factors can also be related to the way in which the individual views his or her
partners perception. In the context of a relationship, partner perceptions of
one another seem to be linked to body image disturbance.
Body image disturbance (BID) is composed of two elements. The first
component is body image dissatisfaction, which is the discrepancy between
what the person thinks their body size is versus the body size they would
ideally like to be (Weller & Dziegielewski, 2005). The second component is
body size estimation which is how accurate an individuals perception of their
own body size actually is (Weller & Dziegielewski, 2005). BID can play a
critical role in the development of eating disorders and possibly obesity
(Gardner, Jappe & Gardner, 2009). l
l


There are several body image factors that potentially contribute to
relationship satisfaction. Some factors come from within the individual,
whether it is a distorted thought, bias, misperception, or emotion. The love-is-
blind bias is the tendency for one to find their partner more attractive than
themselves which may inadvertently decrease their own body dissatisfaction
(Swami, Stieger, Haubner, Voracek & Furnham, 2009). This theory found
that people who unknowingly apply the love-is-blind bias more, including
finding partners body weight/size different from their own in a favorable way,
aids in relationship satisfaction by serving as a buffer against negative
perceptions of the partner (Swami et al., 2009).
Thompson, Heinberg, Altabe, & Tantleff-Dunn (1999), found that
women perceived their partners as wanting them to be thinner than they
actually are which was a false perception since most of the womens partners
were satisfied with their partners body size the way it was. These women
therefore became concerned with meeting their partners perceived ideal for
themselves which led to an increase in body dissatisfaction. Thompson et al.
(1999) also found that when individuals had feelings of distress and
dissatisfaction with their body shape and size it led to similar feelings of
dissatisfaction in their relationship. They study found that greater body
dissatisfaction was related to lower relationship satisfaction. This link
between relationship satisfaction and body image satisfaction is important
2


and further supported by Friedman, Dixon, Brownell, Whisman and Wilfley
(1999), who found a significant relationship between respondents marital
satisfaction and their body dissatisfaction.
In other cases, the partner plays a role in the manifestation of an
individuals skewed perception of their body image. Thompson et al. (1999)
found that the way people think their partner perceives them heavily
influences their own self evaluations. If individuals believe their partner
perceives them in a negative way, the influence can be potentially harmful by
exacerbating body image dissatisfaction. Romantic partners for most people
are an important part of a persons life and the way in which the partner
evaluates the individual appears to have a large effect on body image
dissatisfaction. In one study, when men and women were asked to lose
weight by their partners they reported lower relationship satisfaction (Sheets
& Ajmere, 2005).
Gender Differences
Several studies not only support the idea of partner influence, but
include gender differences of body image perceptions as well. Pole,
Crowther and Schell (2004), found that when wives received negative body-
focused comments by their husbands, they tended to have more body
dissatisfaction because of the perception that their partner felt this way. In
marital relationships where both partners equally encouraged health
3


behaviors, husbands were more likely to push for healthy behaviors related to
appearance as opposed to health (Thompson et al., 1999). For example,
husbands were more likely to suggest that their wives workout, increase body
tone, lose weight and go running to become healthier. Wives on the other
hand were more likely to tell their husbands to take vitamins, eat more
vegetables and drink more water as methods to become healthier (Thompson
et al., 1999). In the same study, males relationship satisfaction was directly
related to their satisfaction with their partners shape since these males
tended to value physical appearance more than their female counterparts.
Markey, Markey and Birch (2001) found that romantic partners tend to
influence their partners concerns about their weight. Body shape and size
tends to be a males priority when initiating a relationship and this creates
weight concerns by the female. Markey, Markey and Birch (2004) also
examined the role of husbands in their wives body dissatisfaction. They
found that wives were much more dissatisfied with their bodies than
husbands (Markey et al., 2004). By examining the wives perceptions of how
satisfied their husbands were with their bodies, Markey et al. (2004) found
that wives thought their husbands were more dissatisfied with their bodies
than the husbands actually were.
Finally, Boyes, Fletcher and Latner (2007) examined the interaction
between partner influence and its effect on the individual which found males
4


satisfaction in the relationship had a greater affect on female body
dissatisfaction than females satisfaction with the relationship. The study also
found that males who were less satisfied with the relationship had female
partners who were more dissatisfied with their bodies, indicating an
interaction effect (Boyes et al., 2007).
According to Erik Ericksons psychosocial stages of development, at
the young adult stage in life, ages 20-34, people deal with the issue of
intimacy versus isolation; i.e. they decide to make a long term commitment to
another individual (Rosenthal, Gurney, & Moore, 1987). This is important
since the target population of the present study is college-aged students
which would fall into the young adult category. Therefore, it is important to
examine how a person in this age range is affected by body image
disturbance and how this predicts satisfaction in their relationship. The
current study examined how an individuals perception of self and partners
discrepancy between actual and ideal body size (body dissatisfaction) and the
accuracy of body size estimation (body size distortion) predict relationship
satisfaction.
The purpose of this study is to contribute to the current body of
literature on relationship satisfaction and body image disturbance. This study
examines body size estimation in addition to body image dissatisfaction
among college-aged males and females currently in a monogamous
5


relationship. This study differs from previous studies in that it not only looked
at body image dissatisfaction but included body size estimation which has not
been studied in the context of personal relationships. The current study also
considers the possible relationship between body image disturbance and
relationship satisfaction and includes a variety of relationship lengths, from
two months to 40 years. It included body image data on both males and
females, which differs from many previous studies in that many body image
studies predominantly involve female participants only.
Several hypotheses were formulated regarding relationship
satisfaction:
1. Greater body image dissatisfaction of the respondent will predict
less relationship satisfaction.
2. Greater perceived partners dissatisfaction with respondents
body size will predict less relationship satisfaction.
3. Greater body image dissatisfaction of the respondent towards
their partner will predict less relationship satisfaction.
4. Greater body size distortion by the respondent will predict less
relationship satisfaction.
5. The duration of time the respondent has been in the relationship
will predict more body image dissatisfaction.
6


6. Females will have greater body image dissatisfaction than
males both with their own body size and the size of their
partner.
7. Females will perceive that their partner is more dissatisfied with
their body size than males will perceive about their partners.
8. Females will have more body size distortion than males.
7


CHAPTER 2
METHOD
Participants
The population this study examined was college-aged students
currently in a monogamous relationship which includes both dating and
marriage. The sample size consisted of 282 undergraduate men and women
from the University of Colorado Denver (UCD) and Metro State College, age
range 18-35 (M = 23.44, SD = 6.47), who reported they were currently in a
monogamous relationship for at least two months or longer. The sample
included Caucasian, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, African American,
Middle Eastern, and other ethnicities. The sample also included
heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual participants. Participants grade
level ranged from freshmen to doctoral students in college.
Of the 282 participants in this study, 28.7% were male and 71.3%
female. For sexual preference, 93.3% were heterosexual whereas 6.8% were
homosexual or bisexual. The ethnic breakdown of participants was 66.7%
Caucasian, 14.2% Hispanic, 11.3% Asian/Pacific Islander, 3.9% African
American, 1.1% Middle Eastern, and 2.8% Other. The grade levels of
participants were 24.1% freshmen, 20.9% sophomores, 19.5% juniors, 18.1%
8


seniors, 8.2% masters students, 2.1% doctoral students, and 7.1% other.
The average age of participants was 23.44 (SD = 6.47) and the average
length of the participants relationships was 36.67 months (SD = 46.73). The
average number of participants children was 0.28 (SD = 0.73), with 83.3% of
participants having no children.
Examining average body size of participants, the average weight of the
sample was 154.87 pounds (SD = 44.95) and average height was 66.83
inches (SD = 4.06). The average BMI for the sample was 23.97 (SD = 5,45),
which is at the high end of the normal range of 18.5 to 24.9. Males had a
larger BMI (M = 26.04, SD = 6.28) than females (M = 23.17, SD = 4.88). As
to be expected, males were on average heavier (M = 190.66, SD = 51.50)
than females (M = 140.60, SD = 32.59). Males were also taller in inches (M =
71.49, SD = 3.06) than their female counterparts (M = 64.98, SD = 2.70).
Materials
The Body Image Assessment Scale Body Dimensions (BIAS-BD)
used in this study is comprised of 17 unlabeled body silhouettes of females
(Figure 2.1) and males (Figure 2.2) with a 5% Body Mass Index (BMI)
increase or decrease from the average body size of a North American male or
female (Gardner et al., 2009). Hair and facial features were omitted to limit
the presentation of a cultural bias (Gardner et al., 2009). The figures were
generated from anthropometric surveys and stereo photometric data
9


developed by the United States Air Force Materiel Command (Gardner et al.,
2009). The body silhouettes for the randomly ordered scale were taken from
the original BIAS-BD which has the silhouettes in ascending order with each
silhouette varying above or below the average by 5% of the average body
weight (Figure 2.3). The scale has good psychometric properties with a test-
retest reliability of r = 0.8 and concurrent validity with BMI = 0.76 (Gardner et
al., 2009).
The Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) is a 3-item scale
measuring relationship satisfaction (Schumm, Scanlon, Crow, Green &
Buckler, 1983). Respondents rate how satisfied they are with their spouse,
their marriage, and their marital relationship. The items have been slightly
modified (Appendix A) from the original scale by replacing the term spouse
with partner and replacing the term marriage with relationship.
Responses are measured in Likert scale format with seven points ranging
from extremely dissatisfiedto extremely satisfied. The internal consistency
and reliability of the KMSS is very high, r = 0.9 (Schumm et al., 1986). The
KMSS has high concurrent validity with the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS)
and Nortons Quality Marital Index (QMI) (Schumm et al., 1986).
Self-esteem was measured by a self-report survey question that read
How would you rate your current level of self-esteem? (Appendix B).
Responses are measured in Likert format with seven points ranging from
10


extremely high to extremely low. Weight and body size modifying thoughts
were measured in the same fashion asking participants how often they think
about or feel preoccupied by weight concerns, body image thoughts, dieting
practices, and/or exercise as a means of changing current weight. Reponses
were in Likert format with five answer choices including, almost always,
often, sometimes, rarely, and never (Appendix B).
Procedure
Data were collected from students enrolled in various courses via an
anonymous survey. The survey as seen in Appendix B was created on the
popular survey engine SurveyMonkey and the link was available for students
to access via Blackboard which is the student web portal for UCD students.
The survey is composed of various relationship and body image items from
two established scales. The two scales included the BIAS-BD (Gardner et al.,
2009), and the KMSS (Schumm et al., 1983). The questionnaire included
relationship demographic questions such as, How long have you been in
your relationship?, Are you heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual?, Do
you have any children and if so, how many?", and demographic questions
such as age, college level, college major, and ethnicity. To measure body
dissatisfaction, the discrepancy between the silhouette selected for ideal
body size and the silhouette selected for actual body size was measured
(Gardner et al., 2009). For body size estimation, the body mass index (BMI)
li


of the silhouette selected for actual body size is compared to the actual BMI
of the individual based on self-reported height and weight (Gardner et al.,
2009).
The dependent variable is relationship satisfaction, whether the
individual is satisfied or not satisfied in the relationship based on a score
produced by the KMSS. Each item on the KMSS has a possible score
ranging from 1 to 7 with a total score ranging from 3 to 21 (Crane, Middleton,
& Bean, 2000). A total individual score of 21 implies complete satisfaction in
the relationship whereas a score of 3 indicates extreme relationship
dissatisfaction. Using the DAS and a set of conversion formulas to determine
the cutoff score for the KMSS, Crane et al. (2000) established that a score of
16 or below indicates marital distress or some dissatisfaction in the
relationship.
The predictor variables described in table 2.1 are, body image
dissatisfaction, body size distortion, perceived partner satisfaction with the
respondents body size, respondents satisfaction of their partners body size,
and perceived partners relationship satisfaction. Other variables were
examined to determine the relationship between relationship satisfaction and
age, gender, ethnicity, college educational level, how long the couple has
been in the relationship and how many children the respondent has.
12


Table 2.1 List and description of body image related predictor variables for relationship satisfaction.
Variables Description
Respondents body image dissatisfaction The discrepancy between the silhouette marked as actual size and the silhouette marked as ideal size
Respondents body size distortion The discrepancy between the silhouette marked as actual size and the individuals actual BMI
Perceived partner satisfaction with the respondents body size The discrepancy between the silhouette marked as the actual size the respondent thinks his/her partner views him/her as and the silhouette marked to identify the perceived partners ideal for the respondent
Respondents dissatisfaction with partners body size The discrepancy between the silhouette marked as the actual size the respondent thinks his/her partner actually is and the silhouette marked as the size the respondent would ideally like his/her partner to be
Perceived partner relationship satisfaction The total number the respondent scores on the Partner Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale which is a modified version of the KMSS
13


CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
The data used in the regression analysis were screened for outliers.
Several points of missing data also exist within the dataset which explains the
variance in degrees of freedom shown in Table 3.1. Only heterosexual data
was used since the sample of homosexuals and bisexuals was not large
enough to examine independently.
A one-way analysis of variance concluded that no differences existed
among groups in the categories of ethnicity and grade level on relationship
satisfaction. A regression analysis for demographic variables determined that
age, gender, relationship length and number of offspring also were not
significant predictors of relationship satisfaction.
The majority of participants (-60%) had either somewhat high or
moderately high self-esteem. Most of the participants (-82%) of this study
reported having thoughts about losing weight or dieting practices to modify
their body, with 31.4% having thoughts sometimes, 35.7% having thoughts
often, and 15.4% having thoughts almost always.
The overall results of the study for body dissatisfaction, body distortion,
relationship satisfaction, self-esteem, and weight modifying thoughts can be
14


seen in Table 3.1, while gender differences for each variable are presented in
Table 3.2. On average participants scored a 17.50 on the relationship
satisfaction scale which is above the cutoff score of 16. Similarly, with an
average score of 17.71, respondents rated their perception of their partners
satisfaction level in the relationship. This could possibly indicate that the
satisfaction of the respondent may be projected onto the partner. A possible
assumption of individuals of this study could be that if they are satisfied in
their relationship, their partner must be satisfied as well and vice versa. The
relationship between self relationship satisfaction and partner relationship
satisfaction is supported by a subsequent regression analysis.
Body dissatisfaction is the discrepancy between what size the
respondent reports they actually are and the size they report they would
ideally like to be. Table 3.1 shows that respondents reported on average
being dissatisfied with their own bodies by about 13%. This means that on
average, respondents would ideally like to be 13% smaller than their
perceived actual size. Similarly, respondents were dissatisfied with their
partners bodies by approximately 3%, meaning that they ideally desire their
partner to be 3% smaller than the size they perceive them to be.
Respondents reported that they thought their partner was dissatisfied with
their body by 6.67%. Respondents also had an average body size distortion
15


of 4.02%, which means that participants reported their own bodies were
roughly 4% larger than their reported BMI indicated.
Respondents reports of actual sizes for their own body, partners body,
and how partner viewed respondents body were all near the high end of the
normal BMI range of 18.5 to 24.9. The body size the respondent ideally
wanted to be, wanted their partner to be, and thought their partner wanted
them to be was much smaller and closer to the low end of the normal BMI
range. The discrepancy between actual size and ideal size was largest for
the respondents body dissatisfaction and smallest for the partners body size
as shown in Table 3.1.
On average, participants scored a 3.85 on self esteem which falls
between the response choices of neither high nor low and somewhat high
self-esteem. Respondents also scored an average score of 2.47 for weight
modifying thoughts, which indicates that the majority of participants reported
having thoughts to change body size sometimes or often (Table 3.1).
Table 3.2 illustrates the results of t-tests carried out to determine if any
differences exist between males and females on body image, self-esteem,
weight loss thoughts, and relationship satisfaction. Significant differences
were found for body size distortion, where females overestimated body size
by a little over 7% as opposed to males who slightly underestimated body
size by about 4%. Dissatisfaction with partners body size also yielded
16


significant gender differences, where males reported being much more
dissatisfied with their female partners body size than females reported
dissatisfaction about their male counterparts.
Table 3.1 Descriptive statistics of the sample for predictor variables and outcome
variable, including means and standard deviation
Variable M SD
Relationship Satisfaction Score 17.50 2.85
Perceived Partner Relationship Satisfaction Score 17.71 2.21
Self Body Image Dissatisfaction % 12.92 21.71
Perceived Partner Body Dissatisfaction of Respondent % 6.67 21.41
Dissatisfaction with Partner's Body Size % 2.98 18.45
Amount of Body Size Distortion % 4.02 18.56
Self-Esteem Score 3.85 1.24
Weight Modifying/Dieting Thoughts Score 2.47 1.00
Reported Actual Size (BMI) 23.97 5.45
Reported Ideal Size (BMI) 20.47 3.34
Perceived Actual Size by Partner (BMI) 24.78 6.39
Perceived Ideal Size by Partner (BMI) 22.26 4.62
Reported Actual Size of Partner (BMI) 24.54 6.21
Reported Ideal Size of Partner (BMI) 23.19 5.07
Both self-esteem and thoughts about dieting practices to lose weight or
modify body size also had significant gender differences with females having
lower self-esteem and more frequent thoughts about losing weight than
males. Gender differences for body dissatisfaction approached significance,
with females expressing more dissatisfaction with their body size than males.
No significant difference was found for the perceived partners dissatisfaction
with respondents body size.
17


Relationship satisfaction of the respondent and perceived relationship
satisfaction of the partner were also significantly correlated r{262) = .58, p <
0.001, which indicates a relationship between the level of satisfaction a
person has in his/her relationship and the perceived satisfaction the
respondents partner has in the relationship. Due to the significance of this
relationship, the perceived partner relationship satisfaction was explored as a
predictor in the regression analysis.
18


Table 3.2 Gender differences for body image disturbance and other relationship factors
Measure Gender df t P
M SD
Relationship M 17.33 3.03
Satisfaction Score F 17.57 2.78 280 -0.62 0.534
Perceived Partner M 17.63 2.46
Relationship Satisfaction F 17.75 2.11 279 -0.41 0.679
Body Image M 8.95 24.83
Dissatisfaction % F 14.50 20.19 276 -1.93 0.054
Perceived Partner M 3.96 22.63
Body Dissatisfaction % F 7.76 20.86 276 -1.34 0.181
Dissatisfaction M 8.59 17.52
With Partners Size % F 0.72 18.37 274 3.26 0.001
Body Image M -4.23 18.08
Distortion % F 7.31 17.75 275 -4.86 0.001
Self Esteem Score M 4.21 1.19
(High = 6; Low = 0) F 3.71 1.23 278 3.12 0.002
Thoughts about weight M 2.05 0.96
Loss (Never = 0, Always = 4) F 2.63 0.97 278 -4.54 0.001
Actual Size (BMI) M 24.86 6.73
F 24.97 6.06 279 -0.12 0.903
Ideal Size (BMI) M 21.23 3.98
F 20.16 3.01 277 2.43 0.016
Perceived Actual M 25.44 6.92
Size by Partner (BMI) F 24.52 6.16 276 0.28 0.277
Perceived Ideal M 23.40 5.19
Size by Partner (BMI) F 21.81 4.30 277 2.64 0.009
Actual Size of M 24.82 6.34
Partner (BMI) F 24.43 6.17 274 0.47 0.639
Ideal Size of M 21.96 4.40
Partner (BMI) F 23.69 5.25 274 -2.57 0.011
19


Regression
Three multiple regression analyses were conducted to identify possibly
predictors of relationship satisfaction. The primary areas in which body image
disturbance was examined are the self, the respondents judgment of their
partners perception, and the respondents perception of their partner. In
each category, body image dissatisfaction and ideal body size were
examined. In addition, the regression analysis for the judgment of partners
perception included the perception of partners satisfaction in the relationship
and body size distortion.
Respondents Body
For the respondents self responses, ideal size and body image
dissatisfaction were used in a regression analysis. Table 3.3 illustrates the
findings of this analysis. Neither ideal size, for example, what size I would
ideally like to be, nor body dissatisfaction, how dissatisfied I am with my body,
were significant predictors of relationship satisfaction (Table 3.3).
Table 3.3 The respondent's body image elements as predictors of relationship
satisfaction
Model B t-value p-value
Ideal Body Size of Respondent 0.034 0.515 0.607
Body Dissatisfaction of Respondent 0.029 0.443 0.658
20


Partners Perception of Respondents Body
For the regression analysis of the judgment of the partners perception
of the respondents body size, four variables were used. Body size distortion
(i.e. how much larger or smaller I think my body differs from my actual BMI),
perceived partner relationship satisfaction (how satisfied I think my partner is
in the relationship), perceived partners idea body size (the size I think my
partner ideally wants me to be), and perceived partner dissatisfaction (how
satisfied I think my partner is with my body), were all examined as predictors
of relationship satisfaction.
Body size distortion and perceived partner relationship satisfaction
were both significant predictors of relationship satisfaction as shown in Table
3.4. Body size distortion and perceived relationship satisfaction also
explained a significant amount of variance in relationship satisfaction f?2 =
0.37, F(4,248) = 36.04, p < .001. Perceived ideal body size and perceived
partner dissatisfaction were not significant predictors of relationship
satisfaction. These findings show that the greater the body size distortion the
respondent had, the more dissatisfied they reported being in the relationship.
Similarly, the more dissatisfied the respondent thought their partner was in
the relationship, the more relationship dissatisfaction they reported.
21


Table 3.4 The judgment of partners perception of respondent's body image as predictors
of relationship satisfaction for the respondent
Model B t-value p-value
Body Size Distortion % 0.113 2.106 0.036
Perceived Partner Relationship Satisfaction 0.604 11.839 0.000
Perceived Partners Ideal Body Size for Respondent 0.094 1.718 0.087
Perceived Partner Dissatisfaction with Respondents Body -0.005 -0.082 0.935
Partners Body
For the regression analysis for the partners body size, the
respondents judgment of the partners ideal body size and dissatisfaction
with partners body size, were examined as predictors of relationship
satisfaction. Table 3.5 illustrates the findings of this analysis. Dissatisfaction
with partners body size (i.e. how dissatisfied I am with my partners body),
was a predictor of relationship satisfaction. This indicates the greater
dissatisfaction the respondent had with their partners body, the more
dissatisfaction they reported with the relationship. Dissatisfaction with
partners body size also explained a significant amount of variance in
relationship satisfaction R2 = 0.04, F(2,254) = 4.55, p < .05. However, ideal
size of partner, what size I would like my partner to be, was not a significant
predictor of relationship satisfaction.
22


Table 3.5 The perception of the partners body image as predictors of relationship
satisfaction for the respondent
Model B t-value p-value
Ideal Body Size of Partner 0.075 1.175 0.241
Dissatisfaction with Partners Body -0.150 -2.334 0.020
23


CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION
The results suggest that there are important relationships and links
between body image disturbance and relationship satisfaction. Length of
relationship was not related to body image dissatisfaction which in turn was
not found to be a significant predictor of relationship satisfaction. This is
contrary to the proposed hypothesis that the longer the respondent has been
in the relationship, the more body dissatisfaction they would have and
therefore greater relationship dissatisfaction. There are however differences
between an individuals own view of their body and relationship satisfaction
and the perception that the individual places on their partner. There appears
to be a stronger relationship with the partner perception of the individual and
the partners body size with relationship satisfaction than the individuals own
body image disturbance and their relationship satisfaction.
For example, self body dissatisfaction and self ideal size were not
found to be significant predictors of relationship satisfaction. This finding
does not support the hypothesis that greater body image dissatisfaction of the
respondent will predict lesser relationship satisfaction. However perceived
partner ideal body size and dissatisfaction with partners body size were
24


significant predictors. This supports the hypothesis that respondents with
greater dissatisfaction with their partners body size will be less satisfied in
their relationship. This also seems to indicate that being dissatisfied with the
partners body image is essential in order for body image disturbance to
predict relationship dissatisfaction. The interaction between two individuals in
a relationship seems to be the necessary component and reason why self
body image elements dont have as much of an impact on a relationship than
the partners views and partners body size.
Since dissatisfaction of the partners body size was a significant
predictor of relationship satisfaction of the individual this seems to indicate the
more satisfied the respondent was with their partners body the more satisfied
they were in the relationship. A possible explanation for why this may occur
is the phenomenon of partner attraction. In the early stages of most
relationships, relationship quality is based on attraction to one another. When
relationships develop and partners become companions, physical
appearance is less of a priority even though it is still important. Because the
majority of the participants reported smaller relationship lengths, physical
attraction may still be a large factor in relationship satisfaction. This suggests
that if a person is not satisfied with their partners body size, they may not be
as attracted to their partner and as a result may give a lower rating for
relationship satisfaction.
25


The respondents perception of their partners view of their body size is
a very interesting concept not previously studied. The fact that body image
distortion, is a predictor of relationship satisfaction, implies that respondents
who distorted their own body size, have a tendency to distort their partners
view of their body size and satisfaction in the relationship. It makes sense
that if a person truly views their body as a different size than the size that is
calculated by their actual height and weight, they might have the view that
others see their body as that distorted size as well. In the same regard, if
they perceive their relationship is not as good as it could be, they will more
than likely believe their partner feels the same way about the relationship as
they do. Therefore, the hypothesis that respondents with greater body size
distortion would be less satisfied in the relationship was supported. On the
contrary, the more the respondent perceived their partner was dissatisfied
with their body had no effect on the respondents relationship satisfaction.
There were several significant findings on gender differences which
include self-esteem, body image disturbance, and thoughts about dieting to
change body size. Consistent with previous studies and with the hypothesis
presented in this study, females displayed more body image dissatisfaction
than males. This is possibly due to media influence for females to be wafer
thin. Females also had lower-self esteem and more thoughts of dieting
practices to lose weight or change current body size than males. The lower
26


self-esteem may account for the greater dissatisfaction females have with
their own bodies. Supporting the presented hypothesis, females had more
body size distortion than males, however, males and females differed in the
direction of distortion. Males had a tendency to underestimate their body size
while females overestimated their body size. It is unknown why the particular
sample in this study yielded these results. This finding is not supported by
previous research which has shown no significant gender difference for
distorting body size (Gardner et al., 2009). One possible explanation is the
increase in media influence that suggests males need to have large muscular
bodies. If males perceive that their female counterparts desire a larger sized
body they may inadvertently distort their own bodies to be thinner as a
motivation to increase their body size.
In contrast, males actually reported a significant amount more
dissatisfaction with their partners body size than females reported with their
partner. This finding does not support the hypothesis that females would be
more dissatisfied with their partners body size than males. The fact that
males as a whole seem to be dissatisfied with their partners body size
appears to play a role in a females dissatisfaction with her own body. On the
contrary, females seemed to be fairly satisfied with their partners body size,
which in turn may also have an effect on the lesser dissatisfaction a male has
with his own body size. The differences in male and female body image
27


disturbance may have many causal and related factors however media has
been shown to play a large role, portraying the ideal body size a male and
female should have.
Significant gender differences were not found for relationship
satisfaction, perceived partner relationship satisfaction and the respondents
perception that their partner is dissatisfied with their body. This does not
support the original hypothesis that stated females would think their partners
were more dissatisfied with their bodies than males. It is unknown why males
and females do not differ in this category. One suggestion is that a persons
perception is not gender specific. Both males and females probably have
similar views of peoples perceptions.
Limitations
Limitations of this study include not having a larger sample of different
ethnicities, homosexuals and bisexuals, respondents with children, and older
populations to examine possible differences among culture, sexual
preference, offspring, and age. The current study also used figural drawings
that did not include morbidly obese BMI figures which some respondents
would be classified as. Relationship status was not looked at in the study
because of previous studies which have indicated that status is not a factor in
body image disturbance therefore relationship duration was used. Future
studies could examine whether having children or not has moderator effects
28


between body image disturbance and relationship satisfaction. Self-esteem
could be considered as a moderator as well and not just a predictor variable.
A validated self-esteem scale would need to be used as opposed to the one
self-report question that was used in this study.
The results of this study not only add to the growing evidence that
body image disturbance is related to relationship satisfaction but it adds a
new finding to the literature on body size distortion and relationship
satisfaction that has not previously been examined. Future studies should
examine the importance of body size distortion in addition to body image
dissatisfaction when considering body image disturbance as a predictor for
relationship satisfaction.
By identifying BID as a predictive factor of relationship satisfaction,
therapeutic settings with couples could examine both partner pressures and
personal pressures of being a specific body size. Another form of intervention
would involve screening both partners for possible body image disturbance in
a couples counseling setting so that issue can be addressed as well as other
factors for treating relationship dissatisfaction.
29


APPENDIX A
The modified 3-item Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS)
1. How satisfied are you with your husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend as
a partner?
2. How satisfied are you with your relationship/marriage?
3. How satisfied are you with your relationship with your partner (or
spouse)?
Answer choices for all three questions:
Extremely Satisfied
Very Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Mixed Feelings or Unsure
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Very Dissatisfied
Extremely Dissatisfied
30


APPENDIX B
Anonymous Online Survey Used to Collect Data for Study
Intimate Relationships and Body Image
1. Research Study Guidelines: Principal Investigator is Colleen Paap
and HRSC ...
The following & a survey Wended for a research study tavoMng body Image disturbance and relationship
satisfaction. Year ftantdpatlon *s (Ms study Is compfetetr anonymous and votuatary. You may exit the
surrey at any dme V you do not uish to answer a question or continue the surrey The title of the
research study b Body Image Disturbance as a Predictive FaHor or Retatlcnshlp SaRstaebon among
Cotege Students. The Principal Investigator I K) a Coieen Paap. any questions about this survey should
be directed towards the N via e man at CoMacn.Paap&ucdtnref.ndu. IT you haw questions or concerns
about your porttctpetton as a research subject you iruy contact the Human Subject Research Cotnmtte*
(HRSC) at 303- 315 2733. The HRSC protocol number for IMs study is 03 0912. By eliciting the 'not
button at the bottom of the page, ycu agree to participate m this study. CT you wish to exit the survey
at any tune, mease click on the exit this survey' lu* at the top right comer cl the page. You must be
AT IE AST ti years of age to parttdpate Hi this study.
31


Intimate Relationships and Body Image
2. Demographics Colleen Paap (PI) HRSC Protocol #09-0912
This page will ask questions about your age, sec, and basic demographics. Please answer the tallowing
questions to the best of your ability.
1. lama:
O"*'*
Q
2. My partner is a:
O"*1*
O Ph
3. My sexual preference Is:
o KitNfMttUll
Ql N^SfFi>KftXt,l
&!;> aJ
4s Whal lihnktty do you most closely identify with?
CdCMin r#hc,
A&Mcars AiraicaT
Q Aiiir
(2)
Aiwkin
[^) Maii cutT
Qoth.r
32


Intimate Relationships and Body Image
5. What is your current educational level?
Fw**hF'
^ Hnwr
Q Sftntor
Q Hwtti
0^ Dtsrt*t
£0 Cfctwr
6. Your a#e in years is:
_____________________________________i
7. What is your current primary major in college?

33


Intimate Relationships and Body Image
3. Self-esteem and Preoccupation Colleen Paap {PI} HRSC protocol
#09-0912
The next two questions address yew ojfrcnt ie-iti of self esteem and preoocupstiao wth body image
thoughts and tiering practices.
1. How would you rate your current level of self-esteem?
Citrvnait tt|
Hstwval*
skmdmi mu )
f^) tents** Mtjh "i:r uflA
SsmiwiNK Ls
Hnf*-c>y Lsi*
Cstiwnnlr Is
2. How often do you think about or feel preoccupied with weight concerns,
body image thoughts, dieting practices, and/or exercise as a means to
change your current weight?
0 AtarSit I'hrl**
o
o SpMTiatmaa
0
0
* ~ ft - -
34


Intimate Relationships and Body Image
4. Intimate Relationship Satisfaction Colleen Paap (PI} HRSC
Protocol #09-09...
The next set of questions wfll ask you about four overall sattsfacHco with your partner and your
relationship. Hesse be as honest as possible and answer the (allowing questions to the best of your
abBty. Choose the answer that HOST dowtfy resembles your current situation
1. How long have you been in your relationship in years and months? (e.g.
2yrs 5mo or 4mo)
I
2. How many children do you have? If you dont have any children, please
type 'none.'
i
3. How satisfied are you with your husband/boyfriend or wife/girlfriend as
a partner?
C.tr.rr* mirM
vof *B*ft*i
0 SsiWAtut
o NtfM w Umar*
o Vrr eittne
Q Crtr*rr# v ibfrlrf#i
4. How satisfied are you with your retatkmship/mamage?
Q) CitrwT* y
-Ql Vity iibiltol
Q Sovrinhtt
{0 Hit*# tf liman
0 SiKPMUt llmtltfiti
0^ Viwy cisshecftK
0 Catrprrmy fiiiantri
35


Intimate Relationships and Body Image
5. How satisfied are you with your relationship with your partner (or
spouse)?
CitTHiKiy uttinkl
o Vary utiiflfti
Q ScmtahH a tit*+4
Hu ad lairv)i w Urtrara
y SKwnhit dtauttiDH
Vary elssi£sfta£
Q Cscrarr*y
36


Intimate Relationships and Body Image
6* Male Partner Relationship Satisfaction Colleen Paap (PI) HRSC
protocol #0...
The fctowlna questions ask how satisfied you think your husband/boyfriend is in the relationship.
1. How satisfied do you think your husband/boyfriend is with you as a
partner?
^ j #iv smite
o Vrf
SemAht
Q Uufi bf KkfK 4a*lr$t
£J) Srra*Ht C'Meiirt*d
(0 Vnry niiuinl
0 0**:lte
2. How satisfied do you think your hushand/boyfriend is with your
marriage/relationship?
\^J Catron I*' Stne
o r irf
Q Semthlut SwtflH!
Lrtitri er Hi* a* *irQi
Sfi^fnhiit
{^) Vary Dictadr**d
C3 Cllrfrr*v
37


ooooooo
Intimate Relationships and Body Image
3, How satisfied do you think your husband/boyfriend is with his
relationship with you as a partner?
Istnnili Sfttlftri
Strtfttd
^ntirt ^ Hiferte
ScM)fthil D<*crt*d
V*ry
Ctkftm t* 38


Intimate Relationships and Body Image
7. Female Partner Relationship Satisfaction Colleen Paap (PI) HRSC
protocol
The follow log questions ask bow satisfied you tfttok your wPt/glrrrKud is m the relationship.
1. How satisfied do you think your wife/girlfriend is with you as a partner?
£jtr*nai* SKifM
Wrf SattoftaJ
5wi*tr 5t*IM
Q tairt o- N)f
ScoHiahtt 0tcAW
Q V*Tf Dtuati**4
i J Eitraira* ->ra:MI*4
2. How satisfied do you think your wife/girlfriend is with your
marriage/relationship?
Ettranalt Sacaflx
Scmaahat SKailaU
{^) bnitrt tiT hate itmHft
Sonaatut DviaeMad
Q WfY Dltutlr**!
t'ttrtrr**
39


Intimate Relationships and Body Image
3. How satisfied do you think your wlfe/gir (friend is with her relationship
with you as a partner?
f**'} Citrritk SMrfu
£0 'f*rf Shtir* *4
Q trwtr* or KtflC Jl1ft
0^ Sew>**ht
0
0) C*|jn**r*'*
40


Intimate Relationships and Body Image
9. Body Image Females Colleen Paap (PI) HRSC Protocol #09-0912
The next set at questions Is for FEMALES on If I it you are a male picas* return to the previous page and
select male.
The drawing below should be used for questions #1 AND #2 if you are a
FEMALE!
Parnate
1. Please select the letter of the figure that most closely resembles your
ACTUAL sue.
O O5 O"
O* O" o *
O' O' 0
Q* O'
O* O' o
O' O'
41
m


Intimate Relationships and Body Image
2. Please select the letter of the figure that most closely resembles the size
you would IDEALLY like to be.
0* 0- 0"
o o 0*
o O' o
o O' O'
0 s o 0
o O'
The drawing below which uses the same silhouettes as the figure above
and should be used for questions #3 AND #4 if you are a FEMALE!
* Note: The silouhettes are in a different order than the figure shown
previously.
) : * 5 ? 0 r' A / L. *? 0 * -s /ft
ifi A A k u 0 IV- i/ ft ft ft iM ft ' if,
li-, ; . % Y'i ! i V t. V iv > / n
; i/.f 'i|i \l f If >1/ ;ft ,!
( A- a U ; rV-. Hi ft: * i >
A e o 0 t F 0 H
l ; 0 0 n ; ( c* i 0 > c
* A A . / 'v r 0 A '* / f 1 / /
1 ft I ft no ft ft d \'i V ft ; i1.' i/l K .1 i, !>t * ; A > w ft
ill \! III \\l i|f ! i : : l!; /
n i;!i n. i Ai C-A M i / 'A fti ii A Hi : ,v
! ,J K i M N { p t
Femate

42


Intimate Relationships and Body Image
3. Pleas* select the letter of the figure that most closely resembles the size
you perceive your partner ACTUALLY sees you as*
0* {> o*
O8 Qh 0*
t> O' Qa
o O' O'
0* o* 0
o O'
4. Please select the letter of the figure that most closely resembles the size
you perceive your partner would IDEALLY like you to be.
0* Oc 0*
0 o o
o< O' o
Od O' O'
0 0* 0
0^ Oi
43


Intimate Relationships and Body Inrage
10. Body Image Males Colleen Paap (PI) HRSC Protocol #09-0012
The next set of questions is for KALES only I If you are a female please return to the previous pqe and
select female.
I J % L M § p
Male
44


Intimate Relationships and Body Image
1. Please select the letter of the figure that most closely resembles your
ACTUAL size.
0* o Qm
o- 0" 0-
o O' 0a
0s O 0'
O' 0' 04
0'
2, Please select the letter of the figure that most closely resembles the size
you would IDEALLY like to be.
0* 0s 0*
0- 0
0 O' o*
0 O 0'
0' 0' 0
0'
45


Intimate Relationships and Body Image
The drawing below which uses the same silhouettes as the figure above
and should be used for questions #3 AND #4 if you are a MALE!
Note: The silouhettes are in a different order than the figure shown
previously.
3. Please select the letter of the figure that most closely resembles the she
you perceive your partner ACTUALLY sees you as.
o o o
o Om o-
o O' Q
o o> Or
o o o<*
o o
46


Intimate Relationships and Body Image
4. Please select the letter of the figure that most closely resembles the sire
you perceive your partner would IDEALLY like you to be.
0* o O
0" 0" O
o O' Oa
o O5 O'
o c> c>
0' O'
47


Intimate Relationships and Body Image
12. Female Partner Body Image Colleen Paap (PI) HRSC Protocol
#09-0912
Th* next art of questions address the actual and ideal body size of your partner.
ir your partner Is FEMALE, please use the drawing below to answer
questions ti AND #2. If your partner is male, please return to the previous
question and select male',
."S
} 1* f y / c> i
h A v\ % h \li . i i r k k ; ,*
y ; ft \ i > Ij; j jy f *J- ;l* . i
1/ \ ?! \ I j \ 5 1 .?! ] p
N v*'* "s >
r *. 1 .-v, i\ :'// V; /' i. '// Ve /-i f. ( (
i ^ 5< 1 'i\ i y i i ! >! 1 v' L 1 ' * \ 1 /
i!s \lj ' I 1 i 1 > t 1 1 ti !
li;r
8 C 0
i *f ,*~v ' !*v. f 0 j "> t f A <1 _s f. J C f 3
>r >, f- ,1 /, \\ A t\* //I {% s \ w fi /,' Vi 3
f' l i ilj 1,' ,1 I I HS l?i >ij ? "t 4 l : * '* % In H t'f Si] li I /5
!f.| S 1 i If ij! i|f \v jij ij/
M j! } l ii i l! '-jj t sK < h i If f 9^7 \\ ii
i J K l N H o P
Female
r-
r -25
C & 1
48


Intimate Relationships and Body Image
1. Please select the letter of the figure that most closely resembles the
ACTUAL size of your partner.
o * o o-
o* Oh o*
o o> o
o o> O'
O' c* o
o O'
2. Please select the tetter of the figure that most closely resembles the size
you would IDEALLY like your partner to be.
o* o* O"
0* Oh Oh
Oc o> O-
Oc O O'
o* Ok 0<*
o* O'
3. What Is your current weight in pounds?
4. What is your current height in feet and inches? (e.g. 5ft 4in or 6ft Oin)
49


Intimate Relationships and Body Image
13. Hale Partner Body Image Colleen Paap (PI) HRSC protocol
#09-0911
50


Intimate Relationships and Body Image
i. Please select the letter of the figure that most closely resembles the
ACTUAL sure of your partner.
o Ag v>
0- 0*
Oc o Os
o O O'
0 o* o
0-
2. Please select the letter of the figure that most closely resembles the size
you would IDEALLY like your partner to be.
0* O5 O
c> O" o-
o o o
o O O'
o Ok
Or 0
3. What is your current weight in pounds? 1
4. What is your current height in feet and inches? (e.g. 5ft 4in or 6ft Oin)
51


APPENDIX C
IRB/HRSC Study Protocol and Approval Notification
MeaftxtoMttc-M

£i rst 1HS
irttK.tfWtcrn >]
mmein w
CMMiHMIiMtaUlM
nwei WKWitt;!tw*
mdiidl'HM
iBHUtf ttwftH SUM)
Protocol Afarnfaseit Apprarri
lT-Nw-JDM
IWJttytlW
Subject
EAkUh Drit:
fsftr
Gil* >*qi
LXMm ft-Awi 0MB12 Vim'lf**!
*.!-Ww-23l
imumi mutmtoHi*, tom mm sttiuNwct c m mu or tMns&f wionMncirs
boc* set
Amendment Deftp?tof
KvsMai
f frtlantte Mtt |aliwy ijuMBsi* tfest* Wkmm M frciJLij*fe? *di toi* magt ,*Jvw< **;* Si
iMUd wmr *y5htn tna dm

52


APPENDIX D
Deans Fund for Excellence Award Notification
Dear Colleen,
I am writing to inform you that your proposal to the Deans Fund for
Excellence will be funded. Congratulations!
The amount of the award is $299.50. You will have one year from todays
date to spend the funds which must be used to subscribe to 10 months of the
internet resource, SurveyMonkey. At the end of the year, you are required to
submit a short report (no more than one page) briefly describing the results of
the project which SurveyMonkey helped you to carry out. Failure to submit
the report will disqualify you from receiving any future support from the
Deans Fund for Excellence.
Good luck with the project,
Dan
Daniel J. Howard, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology and Dean
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
University of Colorado Denver
Campus Box 144, P.O. Box 173364
Denver, CO 82017-3364
Email: dan.howard@ucdenver.edu
Ph: 303-556-2624
Fax: 303-556-4861
53


BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boyes, A. D., Fletcher, G. J., & Latner, J. D. (2007). Male and female body
image in the context of intimate relationships. Journal of Family
Psychology, 21, 764-768.
Friedman, M. A., Dixon, A. E., Brownell, K. D., Whisman, M. A., & Wilfley,
D. E. (1999). Marital status, marital satisfaction and body image
dissatisfaction. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 26, 81-85.
Gardner, R. M., Jappe, L. M., & Gardner, L. (2009). Development and
validation of a new figural drawing scale for body-image assessment:
The BIAS-BD. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 113-122.
Grogan, S. (2008). Body image: Understanding body dissatisfaction in
men, women and children (2nd ed.). New York: Routlege/Taylor and
Francis Group.
54


Markey, C. N., Markey, P. M., & Birch, L. L. (2001). Interpersonal
predictors of dieting practices among married couples. Journal of
Family Psychology, 15, 464-475.
Pole, M., Crowther, J. H., & Schell, J. (2004). Body dissatisfaction in
married women: The role of spousal influence and marital
communication patterns. Body Image, 1, 267-278.
Rosenthal, D. A., Gurney, R. M., & Moore, S. M. (1981). From trust to
intimacy: A new inventory for examining Ericksons stages of
psychosocial development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 10,
525-537.
Schumm, W. R., Scanlon, E. D., Crow, C. L., Green, D. M., & Buckler, D.
L. (1983). Characteristics of the Kansas marital satisfaction scale in a
sample of 79 married couples. Psychological Reports, 53, 583-588.
Sheets, V. & Ajmere, K. (2005). Are romantic partners a source of college
students weight concern? Eating Behaviors, 6, 1-9.
55


Swami, V., Stieger, S., Haubner, T., Voracek, M., & Furnham, A. (2009).
Evaluating the physical attractiveness of oneself and ones romantic
partner. Journal of Individual Differences, 30, 35-43.
Tantleff-Dunn, S. & Thompson, J. K. (1995). Romantic partners and body
image disturbance: Further evidence for the role of perceived-actual
disparities. Sex Roles, 33, 589-606.
Thompson, J. K., Heinberg, L. J., Altabe, M., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (1999).
Interpersonal factors: peers, parents, partners, and perfect strangers.
In K. Thompson et al. (Ed.), Exacting Beauty: Theory, Assessment,
and Treatment of Body Image Disturbance (pp. 175-193).
Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Weller, J. E. & Dziegielewski, S. F. (2005). The relationship between
romantic partner support styles and body image disturbance. Journal
of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 10, 71-92.
56