THE FRESHMAN 15: WEIGHT CHANGE IN RELATION TO BODY IMAGE AND 
BODY MEASUREMENTS 
 
 
 
Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is 
my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee. This thesis does not 
include proprietary or classified information. 
 
 
_________________________________ 
Holly Skinner 
 
 
 
 
Certificate of Approval: 
 
 
_________________________                              _________________________                     
Lenda Jo Connell, Co-Chair                                   Pamela V. Ulrich, Co-Chair 
Professor                                                                 Professor 
Consumer Affairs                                                   Consumer Affairs 
 
 
 
 
_________________________                              __________________________ 
Karla P. Simmons                                                   George T. Flowers 
Assistant Professor                                                  Dean 
Consumer Affairs                                                    Graduate School 
 
 
 
 
 
THE FRESHMAN 15: WEIGHT CHANGE IN RELATION TO BODY IMAGE AND 
BODY MEASUREMENTS 
 
Holly Skinner 
 
 
A Thesis 
Submitted to 
the Graduate Faculty of 
Auburn University 
in Partial Fulfillment of the  
Requirement for the 
Degree of  
Master of Science 
 
 
Auburn, Alabama 
December 19, 2008 
 
 
 
 
 
 
iii 
 
THE FRESHMAN 15: WEIGHT CHANGE IN RELATION TO BODY IMAGE AND 
BODY MEASUREMENTS 
 
Holly Skinner 
 
Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this thesis at its discretion, 
upon the request of individuals or institution and at their expense. The author reserves all 
publication rights. 
 
 
 
 
___________________________ 
Signature of Author 
 
 
 
___________________________ 
Date of Graduation 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
iv 
 
VITA 
 
Holly Skinner, the youngest daughter of Richard and Darlene Skinner, was born 
December 22, 1982, in Bremen, Georgia. She graduated from Bremen High School in the 
top ten of her class in May 2001. She attended Auburn University in Auburn, Alabama, 
and graduated cum laude with a Bachelor of Science degree in the College of Human 
Sciences in May 2005. 
 
v 
 
THESIS ABSTRACT 
THE FRESHMAN 15: WEIGHT CHANGE IN RELATION TO BODY IMAGE AND 
BODY MEASUREMENTS 
 
Holly Skinner 
Master of Science, December 19, 2008 
(B.S., Auburn University, 2005) 
 
215 Typed Pages 
Directed by Lenda Jo Connell and Pamela V. Ulrich 
 
Freshmen students entering their first year of college are faced with stress and 
change, and possible changes in body weight and body image. A common and highly 
publicized notion among college students is the high risk of gaining the dreaded 
?Freshman 15? which refers to the potential for excessive weight gain during freshman 
year. The objective of this study was to longitudinally examine changes of body weight 
in relation to changes in body circumference measurements, body satisfaction, and 
appearance investment. The three-dimensional body scans provided non-contact, accurate 
body measurements of participants.  
Subjects included 26 females and 10 males. Each subject was measured for 
height, weight, and percent body fat using standard techniques at the beginning of fall 
vi 
 
and end of fall semester 2006, and at the end of spring semester 2007. Body Mass Index 
(BMI) was calculated from measurements. Subjects completed a questionnaire probing 
body image, which included body satisfaction/dissatisfaction (BASS) and cognitive 
investment in appearance (ASI-R) for each data collection period. Additionally, body 
measurements were taken each time using a 3D body scanner. Specific body 
measurements studied were the bicep, neck, bust/chest, waist, hips, and thigh 
circumferences.  
Mean weight gain for all subjects for the academic year was 3.8 pounds. Female 
and male subjects were divided into (1) weight gain and (2) weight loss/no change 
groups. For the female subjects in the weight gain group for the academic year, the mean 
weight gain was 5.6 pounds, with measurement increases in the hips and waist, a mean 
BASS score of 3.4, and a mean composite ASI-R score of 3.56. For the female subjects in 
the weight loss/no change group for the academic year, the mean weight loss was 2.67 
pounds, with measurement decreases in the bust, hips, thighs, and neck, a mean BASS 
score of 3.81, and a mean composite ASI-R score of 2.98. For the male subjects in the 
weight gain group for the academic year, the mean weight gain was 6.23 pounds, with 
measurement increases in the thighs, hips, bicep, waist, and chest, a mean BASS score of 
3.48, and a mean composite ASI-R score of 3.03.  
Findings of average weight gain less than 15 pounds aligned with the limited 
literature on the topic. Some subjects gained weight during each semester, while others 
gained and lost. The most noticeable change in body image measures was an overall 
decline in cognitive investment in appearance during the academic year.    
 
vii 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
 The author wishes to express sincere appreciation to Dr. Lenda Jo Connell and 
Dr. Pamela V. Ulrich, who served as thesis advisors, for their time, helpful suggestions, 
guidance, criticisms, and inspiration, which they have so willingly contributed. To the 
other member of the thesis committee, Dr. Karla P. Simmons, the writer is deeply 
grateful for her guidance and interest. Gratitude is also expressed to Dr. Carol Warfield 
who had been very supportive during the completion of study. 
 The author would also like to give special recognition to her friends and family. 
The author wishes to express deep gratitude to her parents, Richard and Darlene Skinner, 
and sister, Crystal Skinner for their constant love, support, patience, and understanding. 
 
viii 
 
Style manual or journal used: Publication Manual of the American Psychological 
Association (4
th
 Edition) 
Computer software used: Microsoft Word 2004, Microsoft Excel 2004, InStat 
 
ix 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
LIST OF TABLES??????????????????????????.?.xi 
LIST OF FIGURES????????????.???????????.??...xvii 
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................1 
Statement of Purpose......................................................................................?.....7 
Research Questions..................................................................................................7 
Definitions of Terms................................................................................................8 
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE?????????????????10 
Freshman 15 Studies?.......???????????????????...?11 
Developmental Influences on Body Image............................................................13 
Body Image Construct and Assessment????????????????.21 
Cognitive Investment in Appearance?????????????????.27 
Proximal Events and Processes???????????????????..29 
Gender Differences in Body Awareness????????????????32 
Body Image and Weight-related Issues????????????????.35 
Waist-to-hip Ratio???????????????????????.?.38 
Body Mass Index (BMI)??????????????????????38 
Assessment and Perceptions of Body Sizes and Shapes????.???.??.39 
Body Scanning?????????????????????????...44 
CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY????????????????????..52 
Sample Recruitment???????????????????????...52 
x 
 
Data Collection???????????????????.?.?????53 
Questionnaire Development???????????.??????.???.56 
Implementation of Research Questions????????????????.58 
CHAPTER IV. PRESENTATION AND DATA ANALYSIS?????????....67 
Subjects????????????????????????????..67 
Demographic Profiles of Subjects.........................................................................68 
Data Analyses??????????????????????????72 
Linking Body Mass Index and Body Composition????.?????..??74 
Research Question 1???????????????????????..84 
Research Question 2???????????????????????..90 
Research Question 3???????????????????????107 
Research Question 4???????????????????????127 
CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...?..152 
 Discussion and Conclusions????????????????..???..152 
           Limitations???..???????????????????????.175 
 Implications and Recommendations for Future Research.????????..176 
REFERENCES????????????????????????????179 
APPENDICES????????????????????????????.198 
APPENDIX A. ANNOUNCEMENT TO RECRUIT STUDENTS????????198 
APPENDIX B. INFORMED CONSENT LETTER??????????????200 
APPENDIX C. QUESTIONNAIRES???????????????????.207 
 
xi 
 
LIST OF TABLES 
 
Table 1.    Sex?????????????????????????????68 
Table 2.    Race????????????????????????????..68 
Table 3.    Family Income????????????????????????..69 
Table 4.    Permanent Residence??????????????????????70 
Table 5.    School Residence???????????????????????..71 
Table 6.    Smoking and Alcohol Consumption????????????????.72 
Table 7.    BMI Chart??????????????????????????.74 
 
Table 8.    BMI distribution for female and male subjects at the beginning  
                 of fall and end of fall semester (observation period 1)?????????.76 
Table 9.    BMI distribution for female and male subjects at the end of fall 
  
                 and end of spring semester (observation period 2)??????????...77 
 
Table 10.  BMI distribution for female and male subjects at the beginning  
 
                 of fall and end of spring semester (observation period 3)????????79 
 
Table 11.  Body composition for female and male subjects at the beginning  
 
                 of fall and end of fall semester (observation period 1)?????????.81 
 
Table 12.  Body composition for female and male subjects at the end of fall  
 
                 and end of spring semester (observation period 2)??????????...82 
 
Table 13.  Body composition for female and male subjects at the beginning of fall  
                 and end of spring semester (observation period 3)??????????...83 
xii 
 
Table 14. Body weight for female and male subjects at the beginning of fall  
 
                and end of fall semester (observation period 1)????????????85 
Table 15. Body weight for female and male subjects at the end of fall and  
 
                end of spring semester (observation period 2)????????????..86 
 
Table 16. Body weight for female and male subjects at the beginning of fall 
 
                and end of spring semester (observation period 3)??????????...87 
 
Table 17. Body scan measurement changes and ?weight gain? group for female 
 
                 subjects (n=15) between the beginning of fall and end of fall semester  
 
                 (observation period 1)???????????????????.??.92 
 
Table 18. Body scan measurement changes and ?weight loss/no change? group 
 
                for female subjects (n=6) between the beginning of fall and end of fall 
 
                semester (observation period 1)?????????????????....93 
 
Table 19. Body scan measurement changes and ?weight gain? group for male 
 
                subjects (n=6) between the beginning of fall and end of fall semester  
 
                (observation period 1)???????????????????.??..94 
 
Table 20. Body scan measurement changes and ?weight loss/no change? group 
                for male subjects (n=2) between the beginning of fall and end of fall 
                semester (observation period 1)???????????????.???95 
Table 21. Body scan measurement changes and ?weight gain? group for female 
 
                subjects (n=11) between the end of fall and end of spring semester  
 
                (observation period 2)??????????????????????96
xiii 
 
Table 22. Body scan measurement changes and ?weight loss/no change? group 
 
                for female subjects (n=10) between the end of fall and end of spring  
 
                semester (observation period 2)??????????????????97 
 
Table 23. Body scan measurement changes and ?weight gain? group for male 
 
                subjects (n=6) between the end of fall and end of spring semester 
 
                (observation period 2)?????????????????????...98 
 
Table 24. Body scan measurements and ?weight loss/no change? group for  
 
                male subjects (n=2) between the end of fall and end of spring 
 
                semester (observation period 2)???????????????.???99 
 
Table 25. Body scan measurement changes and ?weight gain? group for female  
 
                subjects (n=15) between the beginning of fall and end of spring semester 
 
                (observation period 3)?????????????????????..100 
 
Table 26. Body scan measurement changes and ?weight loss/no change? group for 
 
                female subjects (n=6) between the beginning of fall and end of 
 
                spring semester (observation period 3)???????????????101 
 
Table 27. Body scan measurement changes and ?weight gain? group for male 
 
                subjects (n=7) between the beginning of fall and end of spring semester  
 
                (observation period 3)??????????????????...??...102 
 
Table 28. Body scan measurement changes and ?weight loss/no change? group for 
 
                male subjects (n=1) between the beginning of fall and end of spring 
 
                semester (observation period 3)?????????????????...103 
 
Table 29. BASS and ?weight gain? group for female and male subjects at the 
 
                beginning of fall and end of fall semester (observation period 1)??.??..108 
 
xiv 
 
Table 30. BASS and ?weight loss/no change? group for female and male subjects 
 
                at the beginning of fall and end of fall semester (observation period 1)??.110 
 
Table 31. BASS and ?weight gain? group for female and male subjects at the end 
 
                of fall and end of spring semester (observation period 2)?????...??112 
 
Table 32. BASS and ?weight loss/no change? group for female and male subjects 
 
                at the end of fall and end of spring semester (observation period 2)?..??114 
 
Table 33. BASS and ?weight gain? group for female and male subjects at the  
               beginning of fall and end of spring semester (observation period 3)???...116 
Table 34. BASS and ?weight loss/no change? group for female and male subjects  
               at the beginning of fall and end of spring semester (observation period 3)?.118 
Table 35. Mean Averages of the BASS and ?weight gain? group for female and 
 
                male subjects for the entire academic year (observation period 1, 2,  
 
                and 3 combined average)???????????????????.?120 
 
Table 36. Mean Averages of the BASS and ?weight loss/no change? group for  
 
                female and male subjects for the entire academic year (observation  
 
                period 1, 2, and 3 combined average)???????????????..120 
 
Table 37. Mean Averages of the BASS and ?all weight? groups combined for 
 
                female and male subjects for the entire academic year (observation 
 
                period 1, 2, and 3 combined average)????????????.???.122 
 
Table 38. Means of the BASS and all ?weight gain? groups for female and  
                male subjects (observation periods: 1, 2, and 3)???????????..123 
Table 39. Means of the BASS and all ?weight loss/no change? groups for female  
                and male subjects (observation periods: 1, 2, and 3)?????????...125 
xv 
 
Table 40. ASI-R and ?weight gain? group for female and male subjects at the 
                beginning of fall and end of fall semester (observation period 1)???...?128 
Table 41. ASI-R and ?weight loss/no change? group for female and male  
 
                subjects at the beginning of fall and end of fall semester  
                 
                (observation period 1)????????????????????.?.130 
 
Table 42. ASI-R and ?weight gain? group for female and male subjects at the 
 
                end of fall and end of spring semester (observation period 2)?????....133 
 
Table 43. ASI-R and ?weight loss/no change? group for female and male  
 
                subjects at the end of fall and end of spring semester (observation 2)???135 
 
Table 44. ASI-R and ?weight gain? group for female and male subjects at the 
                beginning of fall and end of spring semester (observation period 3)???..138 
Table 45. ASI-R and ?weight loss/no change? group for female and male  
                subjects at the beginning of fall and end of spring semester 
                (observation period 3)?????????????????????..140 
Table 46. Mean Averages of the ASI-R and ?weight gain? group for female 
 
                and male subjects for the entire academic year (observation period 
 
                1, 2, and 3 combined average)???????????????...??..142 
 
Table 47. Mean Averages of the ASI-R and ?weight loss? group for female 
 
                and male subjects for the entire academic year (observation period  
 
                1, 2, and 3 combined average)??????????????????.143 
 
Table 48. Mean Averages of the ASI-R and ?all weight? groups for female 
 
                and male subjects for the entire academic year (observation period  
 
                1, 2, and 3 combined average)??????????????????.145 
 
xvi 
 
Table 49. Means of the ASI-R and all ?weight gain? groups for female  
                subjects (observation periods: 1, 2, and 3)?????????.?.?.?...146 
Table 50. Means of the ASI-R and all ?weight gain? groups for male subjects  
                (observation periods: 1, 2, and 3)???????????????...?.147 
Table 51. Means of the ASI-R and all ?weight loss/no change? groups for 
                female subjects (observation periods: 1, 2, and 3)?????...???...?149 
Table 52. Means of the ASI-R and all ?weight loss/no change? groups for  
                male subjects (observation periods: 1, 2, and 3)??????...???..?150 
Table 53. Body scan measurement increases and all ?weight gain? groups for  
                female subjects (observation periods: 1, 2, and 3)????????.??.156                          
Table 54. Body scan measurement increases and all ?weight gain? groups for  
                male subjects (observation periods: 1, 2, and 3)??????????.?.157 
Table 55. Body scan measurement decreases and all ?weight loss/no change?  
                groups for female subjects (observation periods: 1, 2, and 3)??????.159 
Table 56. Body scan measurement decreases and all ?weight loss/no change?  
                groups for male subjects (observation periods: 1, 2, and 3)????...??.160 
Table 57. Body scan measurement increases and all ?weight loss/no change?  
                groups for male subjects (observation periods: 1, 2, and 3)???????161 
 
xvii 
 
LIST OF FIGURES 
Figure 1.  Male and Female Silhouette Figure Rating Scale (Stunkard et al., 1980)?... 40 
Figure 2.  Singh?s Line Drawing (1994b)????????????????.?.?42 
Figure 3.  Measurement Extraction from 3D Body Scan???????????..?.45 
 
 
 1
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 
 
 
 
Prevalent in the popular press, the ?Freshman 15? is a common phrase used to 
describe the dreadful idea that college freshmen will gain an average of fifteen pounds of 
body weight in their first year of college (Cohen, 2006; Marchione, 2006; O'Donnell, 
2006; Oz, 2006; Singer, 2006). This idea of weight change has pervaded college 
campuses for decades and still inundates the minds of freshmen believers. It is so 
widespread that Daphne Oz, author of the recently released book, ?The Dorm Room 
Diet,? specifically targets college students dealing with weight change and promotes 
healthy eating habits (2006).  
It is difficult not to notice the idea of the ?Freshman 15,? as the incidence of 
obesity in the United States has increased over the last two to three decades for men and 
women of all ages, racial and ethnic groups, and educational levels, according to recent 
reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2007b). The CDC 
provides data from the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health 
Promotion (NCCDPHP), and two National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 
(NHANES) show that, ?among adults aged 20?74 years the prevalence of obesity 
increased from 15.0% (in the 1976?1980 survey) to 32.9% (in the 2003?2004 survey)? 
(2007b, p.1). The two surveys also show increases in weight gain among children and 
teens. For those aged 12?19 years, the overweight category has increased from 5.0% to 
 
 2
17.4% (CDC, 2007b). The obesity epidemic has emerged more in certain regions of the 
United States, particularly in the south Atlantic and southeastern central areas (CAS, 
2003; Mokdad, Ford, Bowman, Dietz, Vinicor, Bales, & Marks, 2003). In a report by a 
public health advocacy group, the Trust for America?s Health (TFAH), the state of 
Alabama is ranked second in the nation in obesity rates, behind only Mississippi (2006). 
Alabama?s adults who were obese in the period 2003-2005 totaled 28.7 percent of the 
state (TFAH, 2006). Along with Mississippi and Alabama, the other three high obesity 
states were West Virginia, Louisiana, and Kentucky (TFAH, 2006). 
Multiple environmental and social forces act on freshmen college students? 
behavior and could affect possible weight change. These forces include the processes of 
adapting to a new lifestyle. For example, freshman students are typically away from 
parental guidance and free to eat what they want.  There are many eating temptations. 
Black (2007, p.1) states that freshmen students ?can pile on the portions in the dining 
hall, eat dinners of french fries and ice cream, and indulge in sugary and salty snacks to 
fuel late-night study sessions.? Students may increase their energy intake (i.e. additional 
calories) and/or decrease their physical activity (Hoffman, Policastro, Quick, & Lee, 
2006). Many students tend to exercise less after high school because their changing daily 
routines could affect the time spent on physical activity (Buckley, 2005). ?Making the 
transition from home and high school to university can be difficult -- university students 
are busy with class, homework and socializing, more so than high school? (Ritter, 2006, 
p. 1).  
The pressure of acclimating to college can trigger weight change. People 
sometimes eat or fail to eat in response to anxiety, homesickness, sadness, or stress 
 
 3
(Hartsoe, 2006; Mancini, 2007). They may begin or increase the use of alcohol and drugs 
(Freshman Fifteen, 2007; Waehner, 2007). Such behaviors intensify the problems young 
people deal with on a day-to-day basis.  
Weight change could affect body image and body satisfaction. In the new 
environment, social interactions occur that may affect the importance freshmen students 
place on appearance. The body image construct is a dynamic concept that can be defined 
to incorporate various meanings. For this study, Cash?s (2002) definitions of body image 
investment and evaluation (body satisfaction/dissatisfaction) was used as the focused 
construct of body image. The two body image elements of investment in and evaluation 
of appearance function as central organizers of the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral 
processes of environmental events (Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002). One?s cognitive investment 
in appearance is an important facet of the body image construct (Cash, 2002; Cash & 
Pruzinsky, 2002). Psychologists suggest that the cognitive investment in appearance 
(mental picture of one?s physical body components) is perceptually based and that 
perception is essentially real for the person (i.e. potentially an accurate representation of 
the measurable, pre-existing, external reality) (Blood, 2005; Henriques, Hollway, Urwin, 
Venn, & Walkerdine, 1984). Due to changing, surrounding forces, freshmen college 
students may experience distress about their bodies that are caused by concerns about 
physical appearance.  
As Oz (2006, p.25) aptly phrased it, ?the idea that tremendous weight gain is 
unavoidable as a freshman has a powerful hold on many young women;? the failure and 
struggle of young women to attain the perfect, ?ideal body image? their first year in 
college could perpetrate body dissatisfaction. A study by Heatherton and colleagues 
 
 4
(1997) found that body image concerns increase with increasing body weight. 
Furthermore, increased body weight is the strongest predictor of weight dissatisfaction in 
women. Body dissatisfaction becomes the issue as a young woman compares her 
perception of actual body size with the internalized notion of cultural ideals, interpersonal 
experiences, physical characteristics, and personality attributes (Blood, 2005). American 
culture seems to have established a ?sociocultural? norm to which women are supposed to 
strictly adhere (Blood, 2005; Cusumano & Thompson, 1997; Fallon, Katzman, & 
Wooley, 1994); when not followed or modeled, negative body attributes of self-
monitoring and self-objective behaviors can result (Fredrickson & Noll, 1998). Previous 
research shows that many young women in America have a history of eating disorders 
due to dissatisfaction with their bodies (Fredrickson & Noll, 1998; Heatherton et al., 
1997; Orbach, 1978, 1988). 
Most of the research relating to the ?Freshman 15? and college women has 
concentrated on the relationship between the regularity with which they consume 
unhealthy foods and beverages. Little is known about the psychological impact the 
college adaptation process has on their bodies, e.g., if it triggers positive or negative body 
image transitions, and thus affects body satisfaction or dissatisfaction (body image 
evaluation) and investment in physical appearance. A longitudinal investigation could 
explore links between exposure to the college environment, body 
satisfaction/dissatisfaction, and body image investments. Such a study could examine 
whether not there really is a ?Freshman 15? and what its impact might be. If needed, 
findings could enhance the ability to counter possible negative impacts. 
 
 5
 Men tend to be relatively satisfied with their bodies when compared to women 
(Forbes, Adams-Curtis, & Rade, 2001; Rozin, Trachtenburg, & Cohen, 2001). Studies 
show that women diet more (Liebman, Cameron, & Carson, 2001; Wardle, Haase, & 
Steptoe, 2004) and are more frustrated with their bodies than men (Lokken, Ferraro, 
Kirchner, & Bowling, 2003; Rozin et al., 2001; Smith, Thompson, & Raczynski, 1999; 
Yates, Edman, & Aruguete, 2004).  
Although there is more research on body image and body satisfaction related to 
women than men, awareness of issues in young men?s body images is increasing, 
including contributors to body dissatisfaction (Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002). Pope, Phillips, 
and Olivardia (2000) provided a foundation for heightened concerns about male 
preoccupation with physical appearance. Clearly, women are no longer alone when it 
comes to wanting thinness and perfect body shape. Historically, shame and fear of public 
humiliation drove men with body dissatisfaction and eating disorders (due to body image 
anxieties) away from acknowledging their concerns (Bottamini & Ste-Marie, 2006).  
Research on male body image has increased, yet it is still relatively limited in scope 
(Olivardia, Pope, Borowiecki, & Cohane, 2004). A possible explanation for this 
deficiency of research is a lack of appropriate measures to tap into concerns unique to 
men. In this study, the addition of 3D body scanning technology facilitated a better 
understanding of where weight change occurs in freshmen men, enhancing the ability to 
explore the psychological impact on self-perception and help pinpoint issues related to 
the body image construct.  
Few researchers have explored the ?Freshman 15? phenomena, environmental and 
social (lifestyle) factors associated with weight change, and issues might differ across 
 
 6
gender. Research is quite sparse and does not fully support the finding that freshmen gain 
a significant amount of weight over their first year at college. For example, a study at 
Cornell University (2004) only explored the first semester of weight change in freshman 
students, and was limited to using just one method of traditional weight measurement, a 
Healthometer scale.  To date, no studies have longitudinally assessed changes in body 
shape and size, creating a basis for investigating possible changes in the body image 
construct and the cognitive investment in appearance.  
With today?s technology, researchers can now use scan data to understand 
possible changes in weight in relation to body image and investment in appearance. The 
addition of three-dimensional body scanning technology brings a new way to see where 
weight change may occur in the gender specific areas, and how this might relate to the 
longitudinal body image constructs. This adds a visual component to weight change and 
body fat data that are calculated by standard weight measurements and Body Mass Index 
(BMI), a calculation in which weight is divided by height (CDC, Body Mass Index 
Home, 2007a). Three-dimensional body scanning is becoming a standard practice for 
research that involves body shape change, as well as body measurement change 
(Bougourd, Dekker, Ross, & Ward, 2000; McKinnon & Istook, 2002; Simmons & Istook, 
2003; [TC]
2
, 2008a; Wells, Treleaven, & Cole, 2007). ?With the use of 3D body 
scanners, body measurement techniques can be non-contact, instant, and accurate? 
(Simmons & Istook, 2003, p. 306). Three-dimensional body scanning provides many 
more aspects in capturing measurements by using an electronically derived image-based 
method as compared with the traditional manual approaches that are particularly 
problematic or unreliable (Bougourd et al., 2000). Measurements of 3D body scans are 
 
 7
extracted in seconds and are consistent when measuring a large number of locations or 
landmarks on the human body. Additionally, it is a more desirable method of measuring 
the human body, with the privacy of individuals in that no physical contact has to be 
made, unlike traditional measures (Simmons & Istook, 2003). 
 
Statement of Purpose 
The purpose of this study was to longitudinally assess the ?Freshman 15? 
construct by investigating young men?s and women?s size and shape changes, body 
image constructs, and cognitive investments in appearance. By using the 3D body scan 
technology, body scan images could accurately determine size and shape change for each 
gender. Along with individual physical attributes (weight, BMI, and shape), the research 
developed an assessment of freshmen college students? evaluative experiences of their 
physical appearances: measured constructs (body image thoughts and appraisals, and 
emotions associated with appearance) and evaluated overall appearance satisfaction. 
Male and female subjects were analyzed together and separately.  
 
Research Questions 
1. Is there a change in weight over the longitudinal observations? 
2. If there is weight change, do body measurements change at the bicep, neck, 
bust/chest, natural waist, hips, or thighs? 
3. Does the perception of body satisfaction related to weight gain or weight loss 
change over the three observations? 
 
4. Is there a change in cognitive appearance investment, and if so, is it related to 
weight gain or weight loss over the three observations? 
 
Definition of Terms 
 Body Image Construct: Made up of two central organizing, attitudinal body image 
elements (body image evaluation and body image investment) (Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002).   
Body Image Evaluation: ?Satisfaction or dissatisfaction (e.g., positive-to-negative 
appraisals) with one?s body, including evaluative beliefs about it? (Cash & Pruzinsky, 
2002, p.38). 
Body Image Investment: ?Cognitive, behavioral, and emotional importance of the 
body for self-evaluation? (Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002, p.38). 
Body Mass Index (BMI):  BMI gives a dependable indicator of body fat and is 
used to determine a weight category and any health risks.  A number is calculated from a 
person?s weight and height. The formula for calculating BMI: 
BMI
inheight
lbsweight
=703*
)]([
)(
2
 
(CDC, Body Mass Index Home, 2007a). 
Body Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction: Satisfaction or dissatisfaction with one?s body 
also referred to as body image evaluation (Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002). 
3D Body Scanner: ?The three-dimensional body scanner is a tool that captures 
information about the surface of the body using multiple laser or white lights and CCD 
(Charge-Coupled Device) cameras. Electronic circuitry and a microprocessor unload the 
data which are processed, saved as a file, and visualized as a three-dimensional image on 
 8
 
 9
a computer monitor? (Explore Cornell, 2003, ? 4). This image is a three-dimensionally 
accurate copy of the subject and can be manipulated and viewed on a computer screen. 
The one used in this study was the [TC]
2
 NX12 Body Scanner developed by the 
Textile/Clothing Technology Corporation
  
in Cary, North Carolina. 
Cognitive Investment in Appearance: The mental processing of one?s physical 
appearance through thought, experience, and the senses (Cash & Labarge, 1996). 
 
 10
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 
 
 
 
This literature is separated into two main sections and sub-sections: (1) analysis 
and theoretical framework [(a) freshman 15 studies, (b) developmental influences on 
body image, (c) body image construct and assessment, (d) cognitive investment in 
appearance, (e) proximal events and processes, (f) gender differences in body awareness, 
and (g) body image and weight-related issues]; and (2) techniques and technology for 
assessing body shape/weight placement [(a) Waist-to-hip Ratio, (b) Body Mass Index, (c) 
assessments and perceptions of body sizes and shapes, and (d) body scanning]. Each 
section explains the significance of the literature to the research described in this thesis. 
The literature will also explore research studies completed in the past and will relate them 
to the current studies. Definitions of body image vary greatly and stem from a range of 
different theoretical orientations. The focus and interest of this work derives from certain 
beliefs about the importance, meaning, and influence of appearance in one?s life. Two 
basic elements, body image investment and evaluation, and the cognitive investment in 
appearance, are the foundations of the body image construct for this study. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 11
Analysis and Theoretical Framework 
 
Freshman 15 Studies 
 
First year students commonly know of the ?Freshman 15? as a college 
phenomenon, and it is frequently cited in the popular press; however, little scientific 
evidence supports this issue. The research is limited but some suggests not all freshmen 
tend to gain the average of 15 pounds. While weight change in female freshmen students 
has been documented often, studies have not thoroughly documented weight change in 
male freshmen students. Moreover, various factors associated with weight change in both 
genders have not been significantly documented. 
  Researchers at Cornell University, Levitsky, Halbmaier, and Mrdjenovic (2004), 
conducted a correlational study in order to quantify the weight gain of freshmen. A total 
of 60 students were sampled (51 females and 9 males). They found that students 
significantly increased their mean weight (4.19 + 5.29 lbs.) over a 12-week period. That 
is 11 times the expected weight gain for the typical 17- or 18-year-old, and nearly 20 
times the weight gain for the average adult. According to the two linear regression 
models generated from the analysis of the questionnaire, the first linear regression model 
accounted for 58% of the variance. This model indicated that eating in the ?all-you-can-
eat? dining halls accounted for 20% of the variance in weight gain. Snacking and eating 
high-fat ?junk food? accounted for another 20%. When the initial weight was used as a 
covariate in the second linear regression model; the consumption of junk foods, meal 
frequency and number of snacks accounted for 47% of the variance (Levitsky et al., 
2004). The researchers concluded, ?the study clearly demonstrated that significant weight 
gain during first semester college is a real phenomenon and can be attributed to tangible 
 12
environmental stimuli? (Levitsky et al., 2004, p.1435). 
 Researchers, Duncan and Simpson, conducted an unpublished study of the 
?Freshman 15,? at the University of Guelph, which only used female freshmen students 
(Ritter, 2006). They found that while the female students gained weight over the course 
of the first year, their weight gain was not as dramatic as in the Cornell study by Levitsky 
and colleagues (2004) of the first 12 weeks. They also measured body fat and waist 
circumference. This study found that weight gain in more than 100 first-year college 
women was an average of about five pounds over the course of the year. This was not 
even half of the purported ?Freshman 15.? The researchers note that weight gain issues 
still significantly exist for new, incoming college students. 
    At Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey in New Brunswick, researchers 
measured changes in body weight and percentage of body fat among 67 freshmen college 
students (35 females and 32 males) (Hoffman, Policastro, Quick, & Lee, 2006). The 
subjects were those that had completed a college-wide health assessment in the first 
semester of their freshmen year. The students sampled from this assessment were then 
used in the researchers? study of weight gain during the freshman year. A limitation to 
this study is that the students were only measured and documented for weight gain the 
second semester (spring) of their freshmen year, providing data only for those who 
gained weight over those months. The researchers measured weight and percentage of 
body fat using a Tanita BF-578 digital scale with bioelectrical impedance (BIA ? to 
measure body fat percentage). The mean change in body weight was 2.86 lbs. (1.3 kg), 
and the mean change in percentage of body fat was 0.7% for the group. For the students 
in the study who gained weight, the mean increase in body weight was 6.82 pounds. (3.1 
 13
+ 2.4 kg) and the percentage of body fat was 0.9 + 3.8% (Hoffman et al., 2006). 
   Researchers Graham and Jones (2002), investigated whether the perception that 
freshmen gain 15 pounds during their first year of college is related to either actual or 
perceived weight gain. Questionnaires and health data were completed by 49 freshmen at 
a small Midwestern liberal arts college at the beginning and end of the year. The 
questionnaire asked the subjects about their eating attitudes and behaviors, body image, 
demographic data, exercise habits, and awareness of and concern about the ?Freshman 
15.? The Eating Attitudes Test (Eat-26) developed by Garner and Garfinkel (1979) was 
used to measure eating attitudes, and the Body Shape questionnaire developed by Evans 
and Dolan (1993) was used to measure concerns about body image. The freshmen?s 
average age was 18.5 years; 39 were women and 10 were men. Their findings revealed 
no significant weight gain at the end of the year, yet an average of 1.5 pounds in weight 
loss was documented. The researchers claimed that the ?Freshman 15? was a myth but 
played an important role in perpetrating negative attitudes toward weight (Graham & 
Jones, 2002). ?Freshmen who were concerned about gaining 15 pounds were more likely 
to think about their weight, have a poorer body image than others, and categorize 
themselves as being overweight? (Graham & Jones, 2002, p.171). 
 
Developmental Influences on Body Image 
Past events and experiences that influence how individuals come to think, feel, 
and act, in relation to their body are the developmental factors that shape body image. 
Important among these developmental factors are cultural socialization, interpersonal 
 14
experiences, physical characteristics, and personality attributes. A mixture of types of 
social learning also implants body image schemas and attitudes.  
Developmental factors relate to socialization regarding the meaning of physical 
appearances that begin at childhood, continue in adolescence, and through adulthood. 
Seminal body image experiences develop as person-environment transactions occur in the 
situations of individuals? cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development (Cash & 
Labarge, 1996).  
The basic precept of the cultural socialization perspective is that cultural values 
influence individual values and behavior. The more discrepant one?s self-evaluation is 
from the cultural ideal, the greater the dissatisfaction with appearance (Cash & Pruzinsky, 
2002). Body image dissatisfaction can have devastating effects on psychological and 
physical health. In cultural socialization, a culture conveys standards about appearance by 
which physical characteristics are and are not socially valued. Hargreaves and Tiggemann 
(2002) confirmed that the media creates and communicates what it means to possess or 
not possess certain characteristics. The media is highly influential in cultural acceptance 
as individuals strive to attain societal expectations by dieting, exercising, or using beauty 
and fashion products. Not only do cultural messages express normative notions about 
attractiveness or unattractiveness, they also articulate gender-based expectations. These 
cultural expectations tie ?femininity? and ?masculinity? to certain physical attributes. 
When these cultural expectations are internalized, the cultural values cultivate body 
image attitudes, which encourage individuals to react to life in particular ways (Cash & 
Pruzinsky, 2002).  
 15
Additional research suggests that young men and women adopt different cognitive 
strategies to cope or deal with the American emphasis of a thin body image or ?the 
culture of slimness? (Thompson, Heinburg, Altabe, & Tantleff-Dunn, 1999). The North 
American society?s media images of men and women are omnipresent. A meta-analysis 
of attractiveness and body image utilized 222 studies, which indicated that the gender 
differences in body dissatisfaction are increasing, with women becoming more 
dissatisfied than men (Feingold & Mazzella, 1998).  
The interpersonal experiences and physical characteristics of individuals affect 
body image development. The attractiveness and social acceptability of an individual?s 
physical appearance impacts how the individual is perceived and treated by others. 
Research proposed by Lerner and Jovanovic (1990), demonstrated how well one?s 
appearance matched social standards of physical attractiveness by developing a 
?goodness-of-fit model.? This model suggests that body image evaluations may stem 
from social feedback and self-appraisals. Many physical characteristics from childhood to 
adulthood can alter one?s goodness-of-fit with personal and social expectations. For 
example, variations in physique and muscularity, awkward adolescent changes, and 
disfigurements all play roles in changing body appearances. Aging brings other changes 
including aging of skin, loss of hair, and other ongoing changes to the body. 
The way we see ourselves in comparison to others, the feedback from peers, 
romantic partners, and strangers uniquely influence our self-concept and how we view 
our physical appearance (Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002). These influences are our 
interpersonal relationships. Self-objectification is a factor that supplies some of these 
third person perspectives that so greatly influence the personal ideas of our bodies. A 
 16
growing body of literature suggests that others? opinions of our bodies greatly impact the 
way we feel about our body images (Rosen, Orosan-Weine, & Tang, 1997; Thompson et 
al., 1999). For example, a simple passing comment can either elevate or diminish our 
mood and self-confidence. Hearing ?You look wonderful!,? makes one feel uplifted or 
renewed, but hearing, ?You look tired today,? may make one feel more fatigued and self-
conscious.   
There are three crucial interpersonal processes that play important roles in the 
development of body image (Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002): 1) reflected appraisals 2) 
feedback on physical appearance 3) social comparison. Reflected appraisals refer to the 
belief that others? opinions of us persuade how we think of ourselves. Perceptions of 
others? evaluations of physical attractiveness impact self-evaluations that persuade us to 
appraise our bodies in particular ways (Rieves & Cash, 1999; Tantleff-Dunn & 
Thompson, 1995). 
Feedback on physical appearance refers to the development of others? 
perceptions of us. This feedback may come from parents, siblings, peers, romantic 
partners, coaches, employers, or even complete strangers. Feedback includes teasing, 
criticism, confusing comments, and even subtle body language. Regardless of the source, 
any negative feedback about one?s appearance can be damaging. Researchers have 
documented the negative consequences associated with feedback. In a longitudinal 
investigation, Cattarin and Thompson (1994) found that teasing is one of the most 
commonly reported causes of body dissatisfaction. Not only has frequent teasing been 
linked to higher levels of body dissatisfaction but also to higher levels in eating disorders, 
depression, and lower self-esteem in both adolescents and college females. 
 17
The third interpersonal process of social comparison refers to a practice in which 
self-appraisals of physical attractiveness are formed by the tendency to compare one?s 
physical appearance to others. This theory suggests that the comparison results in body 
image disturbance by the individuals comparing themselves to people they view as more 
physically attractive than them. Some researchers suggest that it is merely the general 
tendency of comparison that yields such disturbance alone (Cattarin, Thompson, Thomas, 
& Williams, 2000; Rieves & Cash, 1996; Thompson et al., 1999). Research suggest that 
the occurrence of appearance comparison as a predictor of body image explains a more 
distinctive variance than does maturational status, teasing history, or internalization of 
socio-cultural pressures for thinness and attractiveness.  
In a chapter from the book, ?Body Image: A Handbook of Theory, Research, and 
Clinical Practice,? Tantleff-Dunn and Gokee noted a key aspect of interpersonal 
relationships and body image as follows: ?body image development is a lifelong process 
inevitably influenced by the significant others who play the most central roles at different 
times in our lives? (Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002, p. 110, chap. 13). Therefore, interpersonal 
processes of body image affect people at different ages, such as children by parental 
persuasions, adolescents by interactions with peers, and adults by romantic partners.  
The influence of peer groups, through much feedback on physical appearance to 
adolescents or even adults, provides concerns with body image. Teasing, for example, is 
an experience extremely common to adolescents and some adults. Rieves and Cash 
(1996), in a study of social development factors, found evidence that peers and friends 
are some of the worst perpetrators of teasing and are responsible for negative body image 
formation for an individual subjected to teasing and other interpersonal comments related 
 18
to their body. This negative body image formation links to greater concerns with dieting 
behaviors and physical appearance. Researchers note that such feedback may not always 
be direct, but the perceptions that an individual draws in their mind in relation to others 
notions, also provides body image concerns.  
Levels of peer acceptance are accounted for as the peers establish the 
sociocultural norm. These studies found that boys, less often than girls, acknowledge that 
thinness increases likeability, and the extent to which the individual holds that concern 
predicts the level of weight and body image anxiety (Paxton, Schutz, Wertheim, & Muir, 
1999). Also dealing with appearance-related feedback, peers? modeling behaviors may 
pressure negative body image and eating disorders. For example, studies of college-age 
women found that women within friendship organizations/sororities or peer groups were 
similar in the degree to which they were concerned about body image and engaging in 
dieting behaviors (Crandall, 1988). Crandall?s findings suggest that members of peer 
groups influence one another. A question in further examination concerning the 
organized peer groups would be whether these individuals reflect pre-existing body 
image attitudes.  
Romantic partners seem to have a significant impact on how individuals feel 
about themselves, their bodies, and their relationship itself. In romantic relationships, 
much time is spent together; experiences are shared; and often these relationships allow 
each partner to be vulnerable in a way that they rarely are with other human beings. 
Perceptions of how partners feel about one another?s looks and their feedback on each 
other?s appearance relates to body dissatisfaction (Tantleff-Dunn & Thompson, 1995). 
Greater body dissatisfaction is connected with lower relationship satisfaction. Rieves and 
 19
Cash?s (1999) research proposed that men place a greater importance on physical 
attractiveness than women, and that as a result, men?s relationship satisfaction is linked 
considerably to satisfaction with their partner?s shape. As an effect, the women?s 
perception of this can create body dissatisfaction and an increase in eating disorders. The 
study by Tantleff-Dunn and Thompson (1995) actually opposed this idea, advising that 
both men?s and women?s perceptions of the opposite sex?s body ideals are inaccurate, 
that women essentially perceive that their romantic partners prefer thinner figures than 
their actual perception.  
Strangers and/or the opposite sex: The divergence in how individuals think they 
should look to be considered to be attractive and how they actually think they look can 
lead to body dissatisfaction. In accumulation of distress about appearing attractive to 
others, strangers may more directly influence body image by providing feedback on 
physical appearance (Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002). Strangers? feedback is often more 
restrained than critical and not as significant as closer interpersonal relationships like 
romantic partners and peer groups. Researchers document that body language, such as 
facial expressions, topics of conversation, levels of friendliness, and preferential 
treatment to attractive individuals, does transmit information to individuals on how they 
view their own physical appearance and body image (Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002). 
In chapter 13 from the book, ?Body Image: A Handbook of Theory, Research, 
and Clinical Practice,? Tantleff-Dunn and Gokee stated, ?what others think and do 
matters; but more importantly, perceptions of what others think and prefer regarding 
physical appearance influence how we think about our bodies and our body image? (Cash 
& Pruzinsky, 2002, p. 115). Research on interpersonal influences is limited to 
 20
understanding the importance individuals place on the opinions of others but does not 
explore the impact on individuals. An additional investigation must take place in order to 
discover why some individuals develop body image disturbances and other individuals do 
not. The American culture places such a great emphasis on physical attractiveness and the 
unrealistic accomplishment of thinness in women and muscularity in men that answers to 
appearance-related values and behaviors are bound to the society?s pressures. 
Other influential factors of body image attitudes are the attributes of individual 
personality (Blood, 2005; Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002). Positive and negative self-esteem 
may be the most critical of these factors (Jones & Buckingham, 2005). Perfectionism, 
public self-consciousness, and a need for social approval are all personality attributes that 
may influence the formation of body image, depending on the individual?s personal 
interactions. Cash?s (2002) research suggests that personality factors pertain to certain 
gender-based attitudes and values. Females who endorse traditional gender attitudes in 
relationships with males tend to be more invested in their appearance, internalize cultural 
standards of beauty more severely, and hold more faulty assumptions about their looks. 
Some body image researchers correlated the estimations of the body with a range of 
personality measures that reflected on the causal relationship between psychological traits 
such as low self-esteem and depression, also referred to as ?body image disturbances? 
(Garner, Garfinkel, Stancer, & Moldofsky, 1976). Prior to these studies, Secord and 
Jourard (1953) worked with personality theories and believed that an individual?s 
attitudes towards his or her body are critically significant to any theory of personality. 
They developed ?The Body Cathexis Scale? in order to measure the level of satisfaction 
or dissatisfaction with one?s body. They claimed that the assessment of the body and the 
 21
self correspond to each other by the same degree (Secord & Jourard, 1953). This claim 
formed a link between body cathexis and self-concept.  
Half a century later, the scale is still being used in experimental body image 
research and to assess more depictions of physical appearance (Blood, 2005; Thompson, 
1990).  
 
Body Image Construct and Assessment 
Body image has multidimensional definitions with unlimited interpretations and 
meanings. These definitions stem from a range of different theoretical orientations, 
including phenomenology, neurology, experimental psychology, psychoanalysis and 
feminist philosophy. According to Cash and Pruzinsky (2002, p.38), ?the cognitive, 
behavioral, and emotional importance of the body for self-evaluation? refers to body 
image investment. ?Satisfaction or dissatisfaction with one?s body, including evaluative 
beliefs about it,? refers to body image evaluation (Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002, p.38). Body 
image evaluations develop from the degrees of differences or similarities between self-
perceived, physical characteristics and personally valued appearance ideals (Cash & 
Szymanski, 1995). 
Looking back at historical perspectives on body image and comparing them to 
contemporary perspectives led the way to understanding how humans relate to their 
bodies. One enduring perspective is the belief that body image plays a primary role in 
understanding human experience: ?the vital role of body image means that it has the 
potential to dramatically influence our quality of life. From early childhood on, body 
 22
image affects our emotions, thoughts, and behaviors in everyday life? (Cash & Pruzinsky, 
2002, p.7).  
The body image construct is built around the basis of self-schemas related to 
one?s appearance. In an early defining study, Markus (1977) identified self-schemas as 
?cognitive generalizations about the self, derived from past experience, that organize and 
guide the processing of self-related information contained in an individual?s social 
experience? (p. 64). Markus offered the idea that a person who is schematic of their body 
and appearance will process important information differently than a person who is not 
schematic (1977). Cash and Labarge (1996) developed the original Appearance Schemas 
Inventory (ASI) to assess these body image self-schemas that reflect one?s core and the 
influence of one?s appearance in life.  
Research following Markus?s self-schemas provided that body image is 
established through the evolving mental representation of the ?body self? (Krueger, 
1989). Body self and its image is created and lives within the actual territory of the body. 
Krueger also believed that we experience life through the body in actuality and that, some 
people make their bodies a narrator of what words cannot say. The body self emerges 
through a developmental order of events progressing from images to words to arranging 
patterns that regulate the total self-experience. Body image is the integral component of 
self-image and the basis of self-representation; it becomes the cumulative set of images, 
fantasies, and meanings about the body. Along with Krueger, other neurophysiological 
researchers, over the last few decades, have produced leading data on the development of 
body image and the differentiation of the mental self as a bridge between mind and body 
(McDougall, 1989; Meissner, 1997a, 1997b; Meissner, 1998a, 1998b). The foundation of 
 23
the psychological self is the sense that we as human beings reside inside our bodies, and 
bring a unity of mind and body with evolving unison of body self and image. The 
psychological self evolves with the use of symbols and language to communicate internal 
experiences. Krueger explains that the capacity to recognize and reflect on how our own 
mind is unique from others develops by ages 6-8. He noted that this capacity to reflect on 
our own experience and behavior and also envision others? feelings towards us, the 
intents, desires, knowledge, beliefs, and thinking, leads to an assimilation of the body self 
(1989). In chapter 4 from the book, ?Body Image: A Handbook of Theory, Research, and 
Clinical Practice,? Krueger elucidates the three phases in the development of the body 
self: An early psychic experience of the body, the early awareness of a body image that 
combines inner and outer experience, and the assimilation of the body self as a container 
of the psychological self (Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002).  
Negative body image has many implications, and is often equated with the terms 
body dissatisfaction and/or discontentment with some aspect of one?s physical 
appearance (Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002). Negative body image often correlates with certain 
physical characteristics such as weight, shape, and facial features. In some cases this may 
refer to specific physical features and not the body in its holistic aspect. Some researchers 
articulate that people may maintain overall feelings of physical acceptability but; dislike 
their upper torso or level of muscle tone, etc. Two approaches to categorizing negative 
body image have been identified. One approach is evaluating each specific physical 
attribute separately (such as rating their dissatisfaction of the lower torso, mid-torso, 
weight, etc.), and the other is evaluating the physical attributes with an overall 
combination of appearance dissatisfaction. These approaches are identifiable in three 
 24
Psychology Today surveys -- the first in 1973 by Berscheid and her colleagues, the 
second in 1986 by Cash and colleagues, and the third in 1997 by Garner. The three sets of 
the Psychology Today survey reports indicated that negative body images were increasing 
in both men and women (Berscheid et al, 1973; Cash et al., 1997; Garner, 1997). 
By concentrating on isolating and identifying specific body parts to be measured, 
other researchers have also developed instruments to assess body image from the body-
specific areas. Such instruments are the Body Esteem Scale (Franzoi & Shields, 1984) 
and the Body-Image Satisfaction Scale (Marsella, Shizuru, Brennan, & Kameoka, 1981). 
This generation of body image measures has concentrated more on isolating and 
identifying specific components of body image that may be present in multiple 
populations, rather than focusing on differentiating diagnostic categories from normal 
controls. The Body Esteem Scale rated how individuals felt about parts or functions of 
their bodies on a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 = strong negative feelings to 5 = 
strong positive feelings. The Body-Image Satisfaction Scale also rated individuals? 
satisfaction with particular body sites.  
Cash and Henry (1995) published a survey of women?s body images. 
Respondents (803) completed a validated Multidimensional Body Self-Relations 
Questionnaire (MBSRQ), and of these results, the percentages of women reporting any 
degree of dissatisfaction or negative body image with various body areas/attributes were: 
mid-torso ? 51%, lower torso ? 47%, upper torso ? 25%, weight ? 46%, muscle tone ? 
37%, height ? 13%, and face ? 12%.  The MBSRQ is one of the most comprehensive 
body image assessments available. In addition to subscales that explore subject 
 25
satisfaction with body parts, the MBSRQ also assesses appearance, fitness, health, and 
illness with other subscales.   
Focusing on specific physical features to define negative body image may not 
fully capture the body image gestalt in some cases. This discontentment with parts of the 
body may not retain holistic feelings of body image satisfaction/dissatisfaction or 
physical acceptability (Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002). In Cash and Henry?s (1995) survey of 
American women, a subscale of the MBSRQ (Appearance Evaluation) was used to assess 
overall body image. By using this subscale, overall body image dissatisfaction (48% of 
the sample) was found lower than the 1997 Psychology Today results (Garner, 1997). 
Other studies add substance to the notion that negative body images are increasing 
in both men and women. Most of these, to date, are cross-sectional studies. Feingold and 
Mazzella (1998) performed a cross-sectional meta-analysis of body image research, from 
the pre-1970s to 1995. They examined gender differences on a range of evaluative body 
image measures. There were 222 coded studies, and the analyses confirmed that the 
effect sizes (female-to-male variance ratios and standardized mean differences) for 
gender became more differentiated over time. Men and women became increasingly 
diverse in how they evaluated their appearances. In conclusion, the results suggested 
differences in gender: (1) women?s but not men?s body image had become more negative, 
or (2) both sexes? body images had worsened, with women?s discontent increasing more 
precipitously. 
Some research provokes interest in the proposition that young women?s body 
images may actually be improving. By using over 15 years of archived MBSRQ data 
collected at Old Dominion University, a cross-sectional investigation was conducted by 
 26
Cash, Morrow, Hrabosky, and Perry (2004). The researchers observed changes in 
multiple facets of body image among 3,127 male and female college students from 1983 
through 2001. The same standardized assessment was used in 22 studies conducted 
within Old Dominion University. The four MBSRQ subscales examined were: 
Appearance Evaluation, Body Areas Satisfaction, Overweight Preoccupation, and 
Appearance Orientation. From the 1980s to the early 1990s, young women?s appearance 
evaluation, body satisfaction, and overweight preoccupation worsened significantly, but it 
progressively improved significantly in the late 1990s. Men?s body images remained 
relatively stable over the time periods and were more positive than those of the women. 
They also had lower appearance investment than the women. The only significant change 
for men was their decline in overweight preoccupation following the 1980s. 
Szymanski and Cash (1995), developed the Body Image Ideals Questionnaire 
(BIQ), influenced by Higgins?s self-discrepancy theory (1987). His theory implies that 
inconsistent beliefs about the self produce psychological discomfort (such as shame and 
guilt). This self-discrepancy theory provides a structure for linking patterns of 
discrepancy to distinct negative emotional responses (Higgins, 1987). Szymanski and 
Cash?s (1995) BIQ asks subjects to assess how discrepant they are from their individual 
physical ideals (on height, weight, bodily proportions, overall appearance, etc.), and to 
rate how significant each physical ideal is to them. Hence, subjects who report a greater 
investment in the attainment of their physical ideals had more negative dissatisfaction 
scores. By determining the personal importance individuals? express concerning physical 
ideals, high and low ratings of negative body images were evident.  
 27
In order to integrate inadequate adaptation for the self-evaluations on one?s life, 
Cash and Fleming (2002), developed the Body Image Quality of Life Inventory (BIQLI). 
The BIQLI measures the levels of positive and negative consequences of one?s body 
image on 19 components of psychological functioning and well being (such as self-
concept, mood, social interactions, life satisfaction, etc.) Cash and Fleming sampled 
college women with the BIQLI. They discovered that the percentage of women who 
expressed negative body image on the BIQLI demonstrated less characteristic rates of 
body dissatisfaction. ?The results further revealed that women in the sample reported 
more positive than negative consequences of their body image for various domains of 
life? (Cash & Fleming, 2002, p. 455). 
 
Cognitive Investment in Appearance 
An important facet of the body image construct is established and recognized as 
the cognitive investment in appearance (Cash, 2002; Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002). Human 
beings examine their own physical appearance thousands of times throughout life. When 
appearance does not conform to internalized body image, we notice the effect, as from 
the sight of our familiar appearance does much to reassure us about our identity (Rumsey 
& Harcourt, 2004). For as long as records have existed, some individuals have invested in 
their appearance more readily than others. The majority of the human race actively 
attempts to influence the way we look, whatever our personal beliefs may be. We either 
conform to the sociocultural perceived norms of appearance or fail to do so by expressing 
individuality (Newell, 2000). 
 28
Blood (2005, p. 24), stated that ?the fundamental proposition is that an 
individual?s information-processing procedures ? thought ? can accurately represent 
external reality.? External physical appearance provides powerful cues for individual 
identity and recognition by others (Frith & Gleeson, 2004). A strong potential risk for 
body image distress is the degree to which individuals are cognitively invested in their 
physical appearance (Blood, 2005; Rodin, Silberstein, & Streigel Moore, 1985). 
?Appearance-related concerns are reaching epidemic proportions in western society, with 
people increasingly preoccupied, and in many cases dissatisfied with the way they look? 
(Rumsey & Harcourt, 2004, p. 83). Due to this dissatisfaction with one?s physical 
appearance, people invest in multiple self-changing behaviors such as taking dietary 
regimes, exercising to change body shape, beauty products, and cosmetic surgery. 
Cash (1993) investigated individuals engaging in a low calorie diet program and 
compared them to age- and weight- matched control subjects. The results indicated that 
the individuals seeking treatment were more strongly invested in their appearance and 
had more body image distress. Those that sought weight loss treatment were distressed by 
their body image. This suggested the importance they placed on appearance. 
Cognitive measures attempt to capture certain dimensions of body image concerns 
with appearance-specific body areas. The original ASI ?was a 14-item instrument 
developed by Cash and Labarge (1996) to assess body-image investment vis-?-vis certain 
beliefs or assumptions about the importance, meaning, and influence of appearance in 
one?s life? (Cash: ASI-R Brief Manual, 2003, p.1). The ASI-R, according to Cash?s ASI-
R Brief Manual (2003, p.4) also states that, ?the ASI-R is an improved, psychometrically 
sound replacement for the original ASI. The empirical results suggest an important 
 29
distinction between the two ASI-R subscales of Self-Evaluative Salience and 
Motivational Salience.? The Self-Evaluative Salience subscale assesses an individual?s 
beliefs about how their looks influence their personal or social worth and sense of self. 
The Motivational Salience assesses the importance placed on maintaining appearance 
through grooming behaviors. These two subscales both aid in discovering the differences 
in genders, as well as self-attentional focus, emotional/identity investment in appearance, 
and the internalization of social stereotypes regarding appearance. The ASI-R is 
comprised of 20-items, which provide statements about the beliefs people may or may 
not have about their physical appearance and its influence on life (Cash, 2003). The 
decision is based upon a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = mostly disagree, 
3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = mostly agree, and 5 = strongly agree. Six of the 20 
items are reverse scored. The Self-Evaluative subscale is based on the mean score of 12-
items, and the Motivational Salience subscale is based on the mean score of 8-items.  
 
Proximal Events and Processes 
Proximal events and processes, according to Cash and Pruzinsky (2002), are 
factors that involve current life events and consist of sustaining influences on body image 
experiences. These factors are appearance-schematic processing and activating events, 
internal dialogues, self-regulatory actions, and body image emotions (Cash, 1997; Cash 
& Pruzinsky, 2002; Cash, Santos, & Williams, 2005; Thompson et al., 1999).  
Appearance-schematic processing and activating events based on cognitive-
behavioral perspectives develop from related events that activate self-evaluations of one?s 
looks (Cash, 1997). Appearance-schematic people tend to place more importance on and 
 30
pay more attention to information relevant to appearance. Activating events may entail, 
body exposure, mirror exposure, social scrutiny, social feedback or comparisons, wearing 
certain clothing, weighing, exercising, mood states, or changes in appearance. 
Internal dialogue, or as Cash (1997) termed it, ?private body talk,? involves 
emotion-laden automatic thoughts, inferences, interpretations, and conclusions about 
one?s looks. Internal dialogues among individuals with problematic body image attitudes 
and schemas (more so than those with normal body image attitudes and schemas) tend to 
be habitual, faulty, and dysphoric. Thought processes may reflect various errors or 
distortions, such as magnification of perceived defects, minimization of assets, emotional 
reasoning, and biased social comparisons (Cash, 1997; Thompson et al., 1999; 
Williamson, Muller, Reas, & Thaw, 1999). 
To manage or cope with distressing body image emotions, Cash (1997) identified 
self-regulatory actions and reactions for individuals engaging in cognitive behaviors to 
adjust to environmental events. Adjustive or coping reactions include avoidant and body 
concealment behaviors, compensatory strategies, and appearance correcting rituals. These 
maneuvers serve to maintain body image reinforcement, as they enable the individual to 
temporarily escape, reduce, or regulate any negative body image discomfort. In addition 
to using these coping reactions, individuals also engage in adjustive, self-regulatory 
behaviors to control evaluative body image. 
 Despite a vast and growing literature on coping processes, little research has 
examined coping specifically in relation to body image. In an initial exploratory 
investigation, Cash (1997) developed a 39-item self-report measure, the Body Image 
Coping Strategies Inventory. He asked 369 college women and men how they 
 31
characteristically managed or coped with situations that challenged or threatened their 
body image experiences. Factor analysis identified three internally consistent subscales: 
Avoidance?makes an effort to avoid the threat to thoughts and feelings about body 
image; Appearance Fixing?makes an effort to change appearance by concealing, 
camouflaging, or ?fixing? a physical characteristic perceived as disturbing to the 
individual; and Positive Rational Acceptance?actions that focus on positive self-care or 
rational self-talk and acceptance. Cash (1997) found that dysfunctional body image 
schemas were significantly associated with the use of Avoidance and Appearance Fixing 
coping but not with the use of Positive Rational Acceptance coping. In addition, 
compared to Positive Rational Acceptance coping, Avoidance and Appearance Fixing 
coping patterns were more strongly associated with higher levels of body image 
discontentment across a range of situations for both sexes. A notable finding of 
dysfunctional body image schemas and faulty coping strategies was the vigorous 
interaction between reinforcing negative self-evaluations and body image distress. 
 Cash, Santos, and Williams (2005) examined the reliability and validity of the 
Body Image Coping Strategies Inventory (BICSI) based on the initial research of coping 
and body image behaviors to further the ongoing assessment. Their research investigated 
how individuals characteristically managed threats or challenges to their body image 
experiences. A sample of 603 male and female college students completed the BICSI and 
other body image inventories. The same three coping subscales used in Cash?s (1997) 
initial exploratory research were used. Regression analyses indicated that multiple coping 
strategies predicted individuals? body image quality of life. The women in the study, 
 32
compared to the men, used all coping strategies more, especially the Appearance Fixing 
coping strategies.  
 
Gender Differences in Body Image Awareness 
 Women are much more likely than men to experience body image concerns, 
regardless of age. Body image is so widely seen as a ?woman?s issue? that many studies 
include only women on the assumption that these issues are not critical for men. 
 The social construction perspective is useful in understanding women?s body 
experience and how different cultures, including Western culture, create meaning for 
them (Blood, 2005; Garrett, 1998; McKinley, 1998). Western culture constructs a duality 
between mind and body; women are associated with the body and men with the mind. 
Men?s bodies are defined as the standard against which women?s bodies are judged, and 
women?s bodies are constructed as deviant in comparison. The female body the media 
portrays as attractive is slim and muscular, a body type more common in men than in 
women (Etcoff, 1999; McKinley, 1998). An unattractive cue to the mature female body 
would be fat on the hips and thighs. For women, all of the biological developmental 
milestones of puberty, pregnancy, and menopause have the potential to increase body fat. 
Women typically gain approximately 10 pounds per decade throughout the life span 
(Kalodner & Scarano, 1992). The perceived deviance of the female body may create a 
negative perspective for women?s body experiences and images. 
A study by Tiggemann and Lynch (2001) revealed that women?s desires to be 
thinner do not diminish across age spans, nor does their preoccupation with being 
overweight, or their satisfaction with appearance. The ideal shape presented in the media 
 33
has become thinner over the past 30 years, yet women have actually become heavier in 
weight. As an apparent consequence of this weight change from the supposed ideal body 
size and shape, many women have experienced dissatisfaction with their body size and 
shape. This is so common that researchers call it ?a normative discontent? (Rodin et al., 
1985; Tiggemann & Lynch, 2001). 
Western culture continues to place high value on physical beauty and perfection. 
It must be recognized that women often experience anxiety if they feel their bodies do not 
measure up to the current Western ideal of female beauty (Blood, 2005). Within body 
image research, a woman?s body is viewed as an object and the impression of body image 
is known as a quantifiable construct (Blood, 2005). In researchers? quest for the truth 
about women?s bodies, they utilize the leading forms of knowledge in Western society, 
those that are informed by counting, weighing, and measuring (Garrett, 1998). This is 
evident in the researchers? claims to be able to accurately measure a woman?s experience 
of her body by getting her to estimate the perceived width of her body parts, such as her 
hips, thighs, chest and face in order to determine her level of body image dissatisfaction 
(Garrett, 1998).  
Self-objectification is defined as a theory indicating that physical appearance is 
based on a socialized idea that women treat themselves as objects to be evaluated. 
Therefore, self-objectification refers to the fact that women value their own bodies from a 
third-person perspective (observable body attributes) rather than from a first-person 
perspective (non-observable body attributes) (Fredrickson & Noll, 1998). The socio-
cultural norm for a perfect body image in young women serves as a dictator for the third-
person perspective. Fredrickson and Noll (1998) found that self-objectification positively 
 34
related to increased experiences of body shame or body dissatisfaction. Therefore, the 
exposure of young women to the college environment and social factors could promote a 
higher level of body satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Body dissatisfaction occurs as a young 
woman compares her perception of her actual body size with the internalized notion of 
the cultural ideals, interpersonal experiences, physical characteristics, and personality 
attributes. 
Many men want to alter their body image, as do women, according to Pope, 
Phillips, and Olivardia (2000). Men are frequently obsessed with body shape and 
muscularity. Other researchers highlight the idea that lack of exercise versus compulsive 
exercise, and appearance obsessions are common problems of body shape concerns faced 
by men today (Anderson, Cohn, & Holbrook, 2000). Such body shape concerns provide a 
standpoint for their body image and body satisfaction/dissatisfaction awareness. These 
two studies found that the desire for men to meet the current appearance standards led 
many of them to spend excessive amounts of time attempting to change their appearance, 
and in some cases to take extensive risks in doing so (such as using steroids). A form of 
body image anguish may emerge in young men as a vague sense of concern regarding 
body weight or shape. This lost sense of concern is only apparent to the outside world 
and/or friends with whom young men feel they cannot express their self-esteem, weight, 
shape, or image issues. Instead of expressing them, they neglect them. Neglecting to 
express their feelings towards their bodies makes it difficult for researchers to make a 
sound judgment (Pope et. al., 2000).  
For late adolescents or college-aged men, body image distortion may become a 
motivating factor concerning physical appearance, popularity, and attractiveness. The 
 35
same is true for females. Males may want to have a muscular body shape but see 
themselves as ?not so muscular.? Females may wish to be a ?lighter weight? but see 
themselves as a ?heavier weight? than they really are (Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002). 
However, male body dissatisfaction is more inconsistent, although men frequently show 
concern about lacking musculature (Harvey & Robinson, 2003; Yates, Edman, & 
Aruguete, 2004). This concept of muscularity confirms that when male bodies? are 
evaluated, it is in terms of functionality more than aesthetics alone (Pope et al., 2000). 
Nancy Etcoff (1999) stated that male appearance is important from an early age 
onward for establishing dominance. An explanation for the modern generation?s 
obsession with fitness and appearance is the idea of a ?supermale? (Pope et al., 2000). 
Researchers blame this media-endorsed creation for infecting millions of young men. The 
image of ?supermales? as lean, muscular, and handsome makes these male icons 
increasingly harder for the average male to attain. Similarly, Miss America pageant 
contestants are women who have physically symbolized the ideal of the ?supposed? 
cultural norm. These images present increasingly impossible standards of beauty for 
women and men. The search for perfectionism in the male population is no surprise as 
women for decades have struggled with these body image issues. 
 
Body Image and Weight-related Issues 
There are many published instruments that have been used to measure attitudinal 
body image (Thompson, Altabe, Johnson, & Stormer, 1994), and have thereby 
established themselves as standards within the body image literature for dealing with 
weight-related issues. The first of these instruments was the Eating Attitudes Test (EAT), 
 36
which was developed by Garner and Garfinkel (1979) to identify anorexia nervosa. The 
original EAT was scored on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 = always to 5 = never and 
measured 40 items. This original EAT has since been modified, and is now identified as 
EAT - 26. It is widely used with both clinical and non-clinical populations as a 
standardized measure of symptoms and concerns characteristic of eating disorders 
(Garner, Olmsted, Bohr, & Garfinkel, 1982; Koslowsky, Scheinberg, Bleich, Mark, 
Apter, Danon, & Solomon, 1992; Mintz & O?Halloran, 2000).  
Another instrument that is a mainstay in body image research is the Bulimia Test 
(BULIT), developed by Smith and Thelen (1984). It was constructed to aid in the 
assessment and diagnosis of bulimia. It is a 32-item, multiple-choice measure. Like the 
EAT, the BULIT has undergone some changes from the original test structure and is now 
the Bulimia Test-Revised (BULIT-R) with 28 items (Brelsford, Hummel, & Barrios, 
1992; Thelen, Farmer, Wonderlich, & Smith, 1991).  
The Eating Disorders Inventory (EDI) (Garner, Olmsted, & Polivy, 1983) is yet 
another measure that evaluated a component of body image with weight-related issues. 
The EDI initially measured the ?psychopathology associated with anorexia nervosa and 
bulimia nervosa? (Koslowsky et al., 1992, p. 28), and has since been used with other 
populations as well. Of the eight EDI subscales, its Body Dissatisfaction scale is most 
often isolated to quantify subject satisfaction with different parts of the body (Delaney, 
O?Keefe, & Skene, 1997). 
The EAT, BULIT, and EDI are just three examples of the multitude of first 
generation body image measures that deal with weight-related issues, focused mainly on 
eating disordered populations. However, these measures are now more widely used with 
 37
normal populations, as well. Researchers have recognized that body image behaviors, 
feelings, and thoughts are conceptualized on a continuum.  
The discontentment with one?s body image has been labeled in multiple ways, 
including negative body image, body image disturbance, and body image dissatisfaction. 
All notions are often associated with body weight and weight-sensitive body parts. The 
notions are, in many cases, most prevalent in women and overweight people (Cash & 
Pruzinsky, 2002). Discontentment with body image is a central factor in weight loss 
decisions, including how much weight to lose and calculating whether losing weight will 
significantly benefit the individual and lead to positive changes in body image (Cash & 
Pruzinsky, 2002). In a cross-sectional study, researchers surveyed 1,200 Radcliffe 
undergraduates in 1982 and 1992 (Heatherton, Nichols, Mahamedi, & Keel, 1995). Their 
primary goal was to compare the two cohorts on weight, dieting, and eating-disordered 
symptoms, but they also included an assessment of students? perceptions of their weight. 
Results reflected a decline in a variety of eating-disordered symptoms over the decade, 
and women in 1992 were less likely to consider themselves overweight than those in 
1982 (31% vs. 42%, respectively). The male cohorts showed very few differences 
between 1982 and 1992.  
Another generation of body image measures has concentrated on isolating and 
identifying specific components of body image weight-related issues present in multiple 
populations. Behavioral aspects of body image are quantified in the Body Image 
Avoidance Questionnaire (Rosen, Srebnik, Saltzberg, & Wendt, 1991), and the Goldfarb 
Fear of Fat Scale (GFFS) (Goldfarb, Dykens, & Gerrard, 1985). The Body Image 
Avoidance Questionnaire assessed the frequency with which 145 female undergraduates 
 38
engaged in avoidance behaviors related to body image. The GFFS investigated the 
behavioral patterns of females who feared weight gain.  
 
Techniques and Technology for Assessing Body Shape/Weight Placement 
Waist-to-hip Ratio (WHR) 
 Waist-to-hip ratio, which is an indicator of the pattern/shape of fat deposition on 
the body, is a body factor used in attractiveness research. In behavioral studies on the 
association between body fat distributions in women, female figures with low, typically 
feminine waist-to-hip ratios, around .70 (waist circumference that is 70% of the hip 
circumference), have been rated more attractive than those with typically masculine 
waist-to-hip ratios, around 1.0 (waist circumference that is almost 100% of the hip 
circumference). Ratings across male, female, cultural, and ethnic groups, have been 
similar (Furnham & Baguma, 1994; Furnham, Dias, & McClelland, 1998; Furnham, Tan, 
& McManus, 1997; Henss, 1995; Singh, 1993a, 1993b; Singh 1994a, 1994b; Singh & 
Luis, 1995; Singh & Young, 1995; Tassinary & Hansen, 1998). 
 
Body Mass Index (BMI) 
A common measure of a person?s weight scaled according to their height is the 
Body Mass Index (BMI). The Belgian statistician, Adolphe Quetelet, developed BMI 
between 1830 and 1850. BMI is an estimation of body size for adults. It was initially 
developed for use as a simple means of classifying sedentary individuals with an average 
body composition, yet many physicians and medical experts rely on its apparent value for 
medical diagnosis. The American Obesity Association (2000) suggested that the use of 
 39
BMI should be a tool to assess an individual?s health risk or weight status. Using BMI, 
the male and female body can be categorized as underweight (below 18.5), normal (18.5 
? 24.9), overweight (25 ? 29.9), and obese (30 and above), (CDC, 2007a). BMI is 
calculated using weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared. Regular 
calculation of BMI can show how much an individual's body weight departs from what is 
normal or desirable for an individual of his/her height. The weight excess or deficiency 
may be accounted for by body fat although other factors such as muscularity also affect 
BMI significantly. 
 
Assessment and Perceptions of Body Sizes and Shapes 
In a seminal study of body perception, Traub and Orbach (1964) investigated 
visual perception of the physical appearance of the body. They designed an adjustable 
full-length mirror, which could ? reflect the body of the observer on a distortion 
continuum ranging from extremely distorted to completely undistorted? (Traub & 
Orbach, 1964, p. 65). The task for the subject was to adjust his/her reflection until it 
appeared ?undistorted? or looked just like them. The researchers were concerned with the 
distorting effects of the mind on perception of the body. It was assumed that the mind 
was able to perceive the objective body accurately or inaccurately. Failure to accurately 
perceive one?s body (as it really is) is implicit to be the result of a perceptual or cognitive 
disturbance within the individual. This study introduced a framework for understanding 
the notion of body image as the body is viewed as an object of perception objectively 
separate from the mind of the person doing the perceiving.  
Procedures that required subjects to estimate the actual body size or shape of their 
or others? bodies have predisposed the perceptions of body image. Line drawings 
developed by Stunkard, Sorenson, and Schlusinger (1980) have been widely used to 
assess body sizes, body image, and attractiveness in men and women. Subjects are asked 
to identify, from nine line drawings of male or female bodies arranged from very thin to 
very heavy, their current and ideal body size based on these drawings (see Figure 1). 
Figure 1. Male and Female Silhouette Figure Rating Scale (Stunkard et al., 1980) 
 
Other researchers, including Rozin and Fallon (1988), Silberstein, Striegel-Moore, 
Timko, and Rodin (1988), and Rand and Resnick (2000) have used these male and female 
line drawings for the same purpose. Yet, limitations with these line drawings have been 
noted by various researchers, including their lack of realism (Gardner, Friedman, & 
Jackson, 1998; Tovee & Cornelissen, 2001) According to Gardner et al. (1998), subjects 
do not have an opportunity to view the bodies from the side, or assess the actual 
proportional relationships of body parts.  
  
 40
 41
 Other line drawings have been used for research on ideal female body shape. 
Singh?s (1994b) perceptual figure line drawings were developed using attitudinal 
measures to investigate female body image. See Figure 2 for Singh?s (1994b, p.285) 
stimulus figures representing body size and waist-to-hip ratio (WHR). However, some 
researchers believe that the replication of Singh?s research has been incongruent in its 
results because it does not include the exploration of sociocultural factors, which could be 
congruent with attitudinal components (Henss, 1995; Furnham et al., 1997; Tassinary & 
Hansen, 1998). Moreover, it is merely a means of linking perceptual factors of weight 
and the Waist-to-hip Ratio (WHR) to Singh?s figure line drawings, with attitudinal 
measures of female body image. In Singh?s study (1994b), 211 subjects (147 women, 64 
men) participated. Female subjects were asked to observe target figures and respond to 
items such as ideal body shape and how similar their body shape is compared to an ideal 
figure selected. Male subjects were asked to rank the target female figures for perceived 
attractiveness and other attributes (see Figure 2).   
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2. Singh?s Line Drawing (1994b) 
The letter in parentheses shows whether the figure is heavy (H) or thin (T) whereas the 
number shows the size of the WHR. 
 
Scores on this measure that were above the median placed female subjects in a high 
restraint (HR) eating category, while scores below the median placed female subjects in a 
low restraint (LR) eating category. HR and LR female subjects showed no significant 
difference in their choice of the ideal female figure, with each group overwhelmingly 
choosing the two normal weight figures with the (low) .60 and .70 WHRs. This study 
interestingly clarifies that when overall weight and WHR are pitted against each other in 
female figures, women and men look at WHR over weight. They both prefer a female 
figure with a low WHR in assessing the attractiveness of the female figure. These 
findings have been replicated with genders, multiple age cohorts, and various ethic 
groups. 
 42
 43
 Several studies have sought to replicate and extend Singh?s research on the 
relationship between overall weight and WHR, with mixed results pertaining to 
sociocultural factors with differences of perceived attractiveness. In one study conducted 
by Henss (1995), a sample of male and female German subjects rated both male and 
female figure line drawings, rather than rank (like Singh?s study). A total of 24 drawings 
were used (12 for each gender), representing 3 weight categories (underweight, normal 
weight, and overweight) and 4 WHRs (.70, .80, .90 and 1.0). Later, in a more recent 
study, Henss (2000) again focused on how attractiveness related to WHR. In this study, a 
sample of 180 female and 180 male subjects were used. Subjects only rated female 
stimuli. Instead of using the figure line drawings, color photographs of six attractive 
females were used and each photograph was digitally manipulated. In this approach, one 
set of the photographs represented lower WHR, while the other represents higher WHR. 
Using 6-point Likert-type scales, the subjects rated the female stimuli. Henss?s (2000) 
study concluded that WHR was not the only important trait of female attractiveness, that 
features independent from WHR, like face and weight were also concerns.  
 Tassinary and Hansen (1998) have provided another extension of Singh?s research 
with weight and shape. They developed a different set of figure line drawings from 
Singh?s in response to two criticisms: ?confounded weight with hip size, as well as WHR 
with relative waist size? and they assert that ?no studies have systematically examined 
WHRs of less than .70? (Tassinary & Hansen, p. 150). It is true that Singh has not 
explored the combination of underweight figures with .60 or low WHRs, yet it is 
somewhat misleading, as two of Singh?s studies have looked at .60 WHRs, either through 
figure line drawings that are pitted against each other (Singh, 1994b) or through 
 44
photographs (Singh, 1994c). Tassinary and Hansen?s (1998) drawings do represent both 
.50 and .60 WHRs in 3 weight categories, but the manipulations of both the hips and the 
thighs of these subnormal WHRs do not appear to look proportionate. 
The Young Women?s Experiences with Body Weight and Shape instrument 
(Delaney et al., 1997) is another measure dealing with body weight and shape change that 
takes a multidimensional approach. It was constructed out of qualitative research and 
emphasizes sociocultural factors. The researchers used a sample size of 16 women 
between the ages of 15 and 29 (high school and university women), 101 items and 7 
subscales; from this they formed semi-structured interviews. Following the initial 
exploratory research, they administered this version to 287 female college students. A 
resulting measure was created that now has 49 items and 5 subscales. These 5 
dimensional subscales consist of: (1) Weight dissatisfaction, (2) Slimness as quality of 
life, (3) Interpersonal messages regarding slimness, (4) Societal value of thinness, and (5) 
Valuing exercise. 
 
Body Scanning 
?The three-dimensional body scanner is a tool that captures information about the 
surface of the body using multiple laser or white lights and CCD (Charge-Coupled 
Device) cameras. Electronic circuitry and a microprocessor unload the data which are 
processed, saved as a file, and visualized as a three-dimensional image on a computer 
monitor? (Explore Cornell, 2003, ? 4). This image is a three-dimensionally accurate copy 
of the subject and can be manipulated and viewed on a computer screen (see Figure 3). 
 
 
 
Figure 3. Measurement Extraction from 3D Body Scan. 
 
With today?s technology, researchers can now use scan data to understand 
possible changes in weight in relation to body image and investment in appearance. The 
addition of  body scanning technology brings a new way to see where weight change may 
occur in the gender specific areas, and how this might relate to the longitudinal body 
image constructs. This adds a visual component to weight change and body fat data that 
are calculated by standard weight measurements and Body Mass Index (BMI), a 
calculation in which weight is divided by height (CDC, Body Mass Index Home, 2007a). 
 45
 46
Three-dimensional body scanning is becoming a standard practice for research that 
involves body shape change, as well as body measurement change (Bougourd, Dekker, 
Ross, & Ward, 2000; McKinnon & Istook, 2002; Simmons & Istook, 2003; [TC]
2
, 2008a; 
Wells, Treleaven, & Cole, 2007). ?With the use of 3D body scanners, body measurement 
techniques can be non-contact, instant, and accurate? (Simmons & Istook, 2003, p. 306). 
Three-dimensional body scanning provides many more aspects in capturing 
measurements by using an electronically derived image-based method as compared with 
the traditional manual approach that are particularly problematic or unreliable (Bougourd 
et al., 2000). Measurements of body scans are extracted in seconds and are consistent 
when measuring a large number of locations or landmarks on the human body. 
Additionally, it is a more desirable method of measuring the human body, with the 
privacy of individuals in that no physical contact has to be made, unlike traditional 
measures (Simmons & Istook, 2003). Yet, traditional anthropometric measuring of the 
body has given way to this new, advanced technology of abstracting dimensions of the 
human body (Jones & Rioux, 1997).  
Quelet first used classical anthropometry in 1870. He had the aspiration to obtain 
measurements of the average man. He began by taking chest measurements of troops for 
better-fitting uniforms (CUErgo, 2005). Several different usages for anthropometry 
included automobile design, work site ergonomics, equipment design, airplane cockpit 
design, and clothing fit (CAD Modelling, 1992; Czaja, 1984; Herzberg, 1955; Roe, 1993; 
Roebuck et al., 1975; Sanders & Shaw, 1985), as cited in Simmons and Istook (2003). 
Furthermore, classical anthropometric data has been used for years in national sizing 
surveys as an indicator of health status and concerns over the increasing level of obesity 
 47
(Marks, Habicht, & Mueller, 1989; [TC]
2
, Size USA, 2008b; Size UK, 2008; Simmons & 
Istook, 2003; Wells et al., 2007).  
In recent years, a successful sizing survey in the United Kingdom has advanced 
from the classical anthropometric measuring system to using the 3D body scanners by 
automatically extracting 130 body measurements from each 11,000 subjects (Size UK, 
2008). This highly accurate and comprehensive size and shape data has greatly 
influenced Size USA and other sizing surveys that can serve as a valuable tool for many 
industries. Following Size UK, Textile/Clothing Technology Corporation ([TC]
2
), a not-
for-profit U.S. sewn products industry organization, lead the effort to conduct the U.S. 
national sizing survey ([TC]
2
, Size USA, 2008b). Since Size UK and Size USA made 
advancements to incorporate body scan data, other national sizing surveys are ongoing to 
take such steps as well, such as Size Mexico and Size Thailand (Size UK, 2008). 
A government-sponsored group conducted the first published U.S. body scanning 
study of a national sizing survey in the late 1990s. ?This study was conceived by the U.S. 
Air Force and was an international survey of body sizes and shapes of people between the 
ages 18-65? ([TC]
2
, Size USA, 2008b, p.7). This study was called the Civilian American 
and European Surface Anthropometry Resource (CAESAR). The CAESAR study results 
were used by the American defense and commercial industries, which preceded [TC]
2
?s 
Size USA study, which this study in turn modeled the national size study conducted by 
the UK in 2001 ([TC]
2
, Size USA, 2008b).  
Due to lack of research in the U.S. clothing industry, [TC]
2
 originally provided 
the Size USA survey data to improve or further assess research in the area of garment 
fitting ([TC]
2
, Size USA, 2008b). The Size USA survey data released more body 
 48
measurement data than has previously been available and provides a comprehensive 
analysis of body shapes and sizes that has not been conducted for decades within the U.S. 
([TC]
2
, Size USA, 2008b). Their body measurement system using the three-dimensional 
body scanner consists of four sensors of white light that project onto the subject to 
register more than 200,000 data points on the body. The points then become a point cloud 
of the subject?s body and reduced to 40,000 providing a three-dimensional image. For 
this study, 10,000 subjects were scanned. Gender, age groups, and ethnicities grouped all 
subjects. Some important findings from the Size USA survey data show that the subjects 
get larger as they increase in age, the Black women are larger than the White and 
Hispanic women of similar ages, the waist measurements increase the most with age, the 
women?s hips are larger than their bust, so they are more pear shaped, and the men?s 
chests are larger than their hips ([TC]
2
, 2004). With the abstracted data, [TC]
2 
has 
attracted interest and considerable value to sectors within the clothing industry, as several 
manufacturers were intrigued to notice that the bust, waist, and hip measurements of 
women of a particular size range seemed to be much larger than their specification 
measurements for their company?s fit standards ([TC]
2
, 2004). Over 50 clothing 
companies have since implemented the Size USA data into their size specification 
profiles, including Victoria?s Secret, Jockey, Chico?s, and JCPenney. Following Size 
USA and Size UK, other national sizing surveys, such as Size Thailand and Size Mexico, 
are now underway using the three-dimensional body scanning technology and data 
([TC]
2
, Size USA, 2008b).  
Other areas of research have incorporated 3D body scanning technology, which 
has involved subjects? body sizes and shapes. A two-part study conducted by researchers, 
 49
Simmons, Istook, and Devarajan (2004a & 2004b), provided insight to sorting and 
identifying female figure types using body scan data. Essentially, the body scan data can 
help improve sizing standards for clothing manufacturers in order to meet the needs of all 
consumers? diverse body shapes and proportions. Because of the rise of obesity rates and 
increased weight gain, the American population has changed greatly over the past few 
decades when it comes to body shapes and sizes. As body shapes evolve, so do the 
clothing manufacturers? sizing systems, in which many fit problems arise (Cotton Inc., 
2006, 2002, 1998). Basic human proportional truths will provide significant 
improvements to the values of fit, as body scan data will help open opportunity to greater 
satisfaction with consumers (Simmons et al., 2004b). The purpose of Simmons and 
colleagues (2004b) research was to develop software that would use body scan data to 
define the body shape of women. The Female Figure Identification Technique (FFIT) for 
Apparel software was created to facilitate the development of new and effective sizing 
systems and strategies (Simmons et al., 2004a, 2004b). Body shape categories were 
established including 5 original categories: ?hourglass,? ?oval,? ?triangle,? ?inverted 
triangle,? and ?rectangle;? and 4 additional categories: ?spoon,? ?diamond,? ?bottom 
hourglass,? and ?top hourglass.? Such additional categories were added after the 222 
subjects? measurements were tested using the FFIT software in the initial testing. The 
categories were used to incorporate accurate body measurements that would reflect the 
most visually accepted body shape category for each female subject (Simmons et al., 
2004b). The body scan measurements used to correspond to the body shape categories 
were that of the ?bust,? ?waist,? ?hip,? ?stomach,? and ?abdomen.? The individual shape 
category information concluded that over 40% of the 222 subjects were sorted to the 
 50
?bottom hourglass? category, 21.6% of subjects sorted to the ?hourglass? category, 
17.1% to the ?spoon? category, 15.8% to the ?rectangle? category, 3.6% to the ?oval? 
category, and 1.8% to the ?triangle? category. None of the subjects were sorted to the 
?inverted triangle,? ?diamond,? or ?top hourglass? categories (Simmons et al. 2004b). 
With the addition of body scan data, body shape and sizing techniques can provide more 
accurate and reliable standards for the clothing industry, as well as consumers. 
In a research study by Ashdown, Loker, Schoenfelder, and Lyman-Clarke (2004), 
body scan data was used for fit analyses for 155 Misses size participants in the best fitting 
size of a test pant style. Expert judges rated 13 fit locations, deeming categories for the fit 
locations as Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable for each area and then comparing the 
ratings using frequencies, means, and percentages to identify problem fit areas (Ashdown 
et al., 2004). With the addition of the body scan data, supplementary benefits to the 
clothing industry include: (1) the advantages of recording fit of garments that can be 
rotated and enlarged to view specific areas of analysis; (2) databases with a variety of 
body shapes and sizes of created scans; (3) scanning garments on fit models to evaluate 
garment/body relationships (Ashdown et al., 2004). Ashdown?s and colleagues? research 
(2004) makes it apparent that the human body undergoes changes over time, such as 
weight gain/loss, changes in body posture/positions, etc., all of which researchers and 
manufacturers of the clothing industry must be aware in that the variation of shapes and 
sizes across a population must be accommodated for and understood with advancements 
in technology. They emphasize the gains of the body scan data, that of which for their 
research it captured a precise 3D representation of a garment?s (pants) relationship to the 
body. By scanning study participants wearing a pant style and viewing the 3D scans, the 
 51
researchers were able to visually analyze fit to identify the problem areas in pattern 
design (Ashdown et al., 2004). 
 
CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY 
 
The methodology described in this section includes sample recruitment, data 
collection, questionnaire development, and implementation of research questions that 
were developed to conduct this area of research. This study was conducted as a part of a 
larger study, which also included weight changes of the body in relation to nutritional 
aspects. 
 
Sample Recruitment 
Subjects sought out for this study were first year, male and female freshman 
undergraduates. Subjects were recruited at the beginning of fall semester 2006 by written 
announcements (Appendix A), in Auburn University?s College of Human Sciences large 
introductory courses, and in Auburn Freshman Experience courses. Students were 
informed about the purpose of the study, and they signed a written consent form at the 
beginning of the study (Appendix B). Subjects received $25 each time they completed the 
study?s requirements. The Institutional Review Board approved this study for the Use of 
Human Subjects in Research at Auburn University. 
 
 
 
 
 52
 53
Data Collection 
 Data collection occurred at the beginning of fall semester 2006, at the end of fall 
semester 2006, and at the end of spring semester 2007. Each data collection session 
followed the same set of procedures:  
(1) Subjects were measured for height and weight using standard 
techniques. Weight was measured to the nearest 0.1 lb using a digital 
scale (Health-O-Meter, Sunbeam Products, Model # HDL543DQ-95, 
Boca Raton, FL) on a level floor. To verify the digital scale for 
accuracy, external weights were used. For each weighing, subjects 
wore their street clothes and were asked to remove all outerwear and 
shoes. They were also asked to empty their pockets of any heavy items 
such as keys or cell phones. Height was measured to the nearest one-
quarter inch using a fixed measuring tape placed on the wall and a 
headboard using standard techniques. In order to measure the height of 
the subjects, each subject stood flat foot without their shoes, with his 
or her heels, buttocks, upper back, and head (looking straight forward) 
against a wall with a fixed measuring tape. 
(2) Body composition was taken using bioelectrical impedance (BodyStat 
1500, BioVant Systems, Detroit, MI). Bioelectrical impedance analysis 
(BIA) measures the impedance of an electrical current (50kHz) 
through the human body tissues. This instrument generates an 
electrical current, which is then passed through the body by means of 
four electrodes placed at specific locations on the right hand and wrist, 
 54
and right foot and ankle. Each subject was asked to rest in a supine 
position on a covered floor space for five minutes in order to reach a 
desired state of rest, along with removing their sock and shoe on the 
right foot and ankle. Their limbs were positioned at a 30-45 degree 
angle from the trunk of the body. By measuring the resistance to 
impedance between the electrodes, an estimate of body water was 
made. This information in concurrence with the subject?s sex, age, 
height, and weight are entered into the instrument to enable the 
calculation of body fat and fat free mass. Since hydration status affects 
the accuracy of BIA, subjects were instructed not to consume liquids, 
especially those containing caffeine or alcohol, or eat for 2-4 hours 
prior to testing. They were also instructed not to engage in strenuous 
exercise 12 hours prior to testing. Due to these restrictions, subjects 
were purposely measured in the morning hours during all three testing 
periods in order to ensure accuracy. 
(3) Body shape and size analyses were made using 3-D body scans ([TC]? 
3-D body scanner, NX-12). Each subject was asked to choose an 
appropriate size from the scan-wear provided, and privately change 
from their street wear clothing. For females, the body scan 
measurements identified and measured were biceps, bust, natural 
waist, hips, and thighs. For the males, the body scan measurements 
identified and measured were neck, biceps, chest, natural waist, hips, 
 55
and thighs. These measurements were determined based on the 
differences of body shape in men versus women. 
(4) Subjects were asked to complete questionnaires during each of the 
three testing periods. These questionnaires consisted of measures of 
lifestyle, diet, body image investment and evaluation (body 
satisfaction/dissatisfaction), and cognitive investment in appearance. 
Demographic information was collected at the beginning of fall 
semester 2006 and included information such as: email address, 
telephone number, date of birth, race, parents? highest education level 
attained, parents? occupations, household income, weight status of 
parents, state of permanent residence, academic year in school, total 
credit hours, health-related college courses taken, place of residence 
during the academic year (residence hall, apartment, at home), number 
of roommates, available food storage and cooking facilities, place of 
dining facilities on and off campus, and other related information 
(Appendix C). The same versions of questionnaires were distributed 
during the three collection periods throughout the academic year. 
However, only one demographic data sheet was distributed at the 
beginning of fall semester 2006. 
 56
Questionnaire Development 
Lifestyle and dietary questionnaires were developed based on the Behavior Risk 
Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) reports from the CDC. The BRFSS has been used 
to track health conditions and risk behaviors in the United States since 1984 (CDC, 
2006). 
Two instruments were used in this study to assess body image investment and 
evaluation, and the cognitive investment in appearance: The Body Areas Satisfaction 
Scale (BASS) and the Appearance Schemas Inventory-Revised (ASI-R). These two 
instruments were selected for this study because they are well established, and address 
multiple aspects of the body image construct from an individual perspective.  
The construct of body image measured the degree to which each subject could 
view his/her physical attributes as consistent or inconsistent with his/her personal ideals. 
There are strong beliefs and/or myths of the ?Freshman 15? weight gain and body image 
distortion that by awareness or not, might have influenced the perception of physical 
appearance in their lives. Also, a goal was to evaluate behavioral patterns (female versus 
male) that might reveal a subject?s attempt to control and/or not control his/her physical 
appearance, thoughts, feelings, and actions about how they conveyed their looks, as well 
as their overall feelings of body image.  
The BASS is a subscale of the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations 
Questionnaire (MBSRQ) that ?approaches body-image evaluation as dissatisfaction-
satisfaction with body areas and attributes? (Cash, 2000, p.1). Of the MBSRQ subscales, 
BASS is similar to the Appearance Evaluation subscale, ?except that the BASS taps 
satisfaction with discrete aspects of one?s appearance? (Cash, 2000, p.3). The BASS is 
 57
comprised of 9-items, which indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied the subject is with each 
of eight areas of his/her body, with the final item asking for the subject?s assessment of 
his/her overall appearance. This comprehensive appearance item is included in the mean 
score for this subscale. The BASS uses a 5-point Likert-type scale: 1 = very dissatisfied, 
2 = mostly dissatisfied, 3 = neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 4 = mostly satisfied, and 5 = 
very satisfied. Total scores may range from 9 to 45. 
Reliability of the BASS was established through Cronbach?s alpha and a 1-month 
test-retest derived from several combined college student samples with Ns = 804 women 
and 335 men (Cash, 2000). Internal consistencies of the BASS ranged from .73 to .74 for 
women and .77 to .86 for men. 
The original ASI ?was a 14-item instrument developed by Cash and Labarge 
(1996) to assess body-image investment vis-?-vis certain beliefs or assumptions about the 
importance, meaning, and influence of appearance in one?s life? (Cash, 2003, p.1). 
According to Cash?s ASI-R Brief Manual (2003, p.4), ?the ASI-R is an improved, 
psychometrically sound replacement for the original ASI. The empirical results suggest 
an important distinction between the two ASI-R subscales of Self-Evaluative Salience 
and Motivational Salience.? The Self-Evaluative Salience subscale assesses individuals? 
beliefs about how their looks influence their personal or social worth and sense of self. 
The Motivational Salience assesses the importance placed on maintaining appearance 
through grooming behaviors. These two subscales both aid in discovering the differences 
in genders. The ASI-R is comprised of 20-items, which provide statements about the 
beliefs people may or may not have about their physical appearance and its influence on 
life (Cash, 2003). The decision is based upon a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly 
 58
disagree, 2 = mostly disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = mostly agree, and 5 = 
strongly agree. Six of the 20 items are reverse scored. The Self-Evaluative subscale is 
based on the mean score of 12-items, and the Motivational Salience subscale is based on 
the mean score of 8-items.  
Reliability of the ASI-R was established through Cronbach?s alpha and was quite 
satisfactory (Cash, 2003). Internal consistencies of the ASI-R and its subscales ranged 
from .84 to .91 for men and .82 to .90 for women. A sample of 468 college women and 
135 college men was used. 
 
Implementation of Research Questions 
Research Question 1: Is there a change in weight over the longitudinal observations?  
 To answer this research question, male and female weight changes were 
calculated in pounds over the three observation periods. A table in Microsoft Excel were 
created presenting the +/- weight variations between each period for each subject, with 
the male and female subjects divided by sex; within each sex, weight loss, no change in 
weight, and weight gain were included (see Example 1). Columns present the actual 
weight measured for each observation period and the difference between observation 
periods 1 (fall semester ? beginning of fall semester to the end of fall semester), 2 (spring 
semester ? end of fall semester to the end of spring semester), and 3 (academic year ? 
beginning of fall semester to the end of spring semester). 
 
 
 
 
 
 59
Example 1.  
 
Weight changes of female and male subjects from the beginning of fall, end of fall, end of 
spring, and total from beginning of fall to end of spring semester (observation periods: 1, 
2, and 3) 
 Beginning of Fall 
 
(1) 
+/- End of Fall
(2) 
+/- End of Spring 
(3) 
Total +/- 
Female 
1 
2 
3 
Male 
1 
2 
3 
 
120 
155 
136 
 
144 
163 
196 
 
+2 
+1 
+4 
 
-1 
+6 
+2
 
122 
156 
140 
 
143 
169 
198 
 
+1 
0 
-2 
 
+7 
-6 
+2
 
123 
156 
138 
 
150 
163 
200 
 
+3 
+1 
+2 
 
+6 
0 
+4 
Note. Data are presented as weight in pounds (lbs) 
 
Weight change was categorized as weight gain, weight loss, and no change in 
weight over the longitudinal observation periods. T-tests for dependent samples (within-
group variation) were conducted to look for significant differences within each 
observation period. For example, in observation period 1, means at the beginning of fall 
semester were compared to means at the end of fall semester for each weight change 
group and sex. Comparisons were also made between each of the observation periods. 
 60
Research Question 2: If there is weight change, do body measurements change at the 
bicep, neck, bust/chest, natural waist, hips, or thighs? 
 To answer this research question, a table in Microsoft Excel was created 
presenting the body measurements (for males ? bicep, neck, chest, natural waist, hips, 
and thighs and for females ? bicep, neck, bust, natural waist, hips, and thighs) calculated 
in inches for each of the three observation periods and providing the +/- numeric 
variations between each period for each subject, with male and female subjects divided 
by sex (see Example 2). Columns presented the actual body measurements for each 
observation period and the difference between observation periods 1 (fall semester ? 
beginning of fall semester to the end of fall semester), 2 (spring semester ? end of fall 
semester to the end of spring semester), and 3 (academic year ? beginning of fall 
semester to the end of spring semester). The table was divided by sex and by grouping 
each body measurement for each subject together (to better assess differences or 
similarities related to each body measurement). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 61
Example 2.  
 
Bicep measurements of female and male subjects from the beginning of fall, end of fall, 
end of spring, and total from beginning of fall to end of spring semester (observation 
periods: 1, 2, and 3) 
 BF?  
(1) 
+/- EF
b
  
(2) 
+/- ES
c
 
(3) 
Total +/-
Female (n=25) 
1 
2 
3 
Male (n=10) 
1 
2 
3 
 
10.72 
9.1 
10.12 
 
11.18 
11.37 
13.07 
 
+0.32
+0.58
+0.16
 
+0.16
+0.47
-0.13 
 
11.04
9.68 
10.28
 
11.34
11.84
12.94
 
-0.21 
+0.14
-0.17 
 
+0.22
+0.44
-0.22 
 
10.83
9.82 
10.11
 
11.56
12.28
12.72
 
+0.11 
+0.72 
-0.01 
 
+0.4 
+0.91 
-0.35 
Note. Data are presented as bicep measurements in inches (in.) 
?Beginning of fall semester is represented as (BF) 
b
End of fall semester is represented as (EF) 
c
End of spring semester is represented as (ES) 
 
Qualitative analysis approach was used on the data collected to investigate a 
difference or commonality between male and female subjects. Examples of possible 
patterns were an increase in thigh measurements in female subjects who experienced 
continuous weight gain or a decrease in the natural waist measurement for male subjects 
 62
that experienced weight loss. Body measurement changes were further examined based 
on weight gain, weight loss, and no change in weight over the longitudinal observation 
periods. Comparisons were made between each of the observation periods. 
 
Research Question 3: Does the perception of body satisfaction related to weight gain or 
weight loss, change over the three observations?  
 To answer this research question, body image was measured using the BASS 
subscale of the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ). The 
BASS is unique in that it approaches the evaluation of body image as ?dissatisfaction-
satisfaction with body areas and attributes? (Cash, 2000, p.1). Therefore, body image was 
observed through the perception of body satisfaction/dissatisfaction for each male and 
female subject using a 5-point Likert-type scale. A table in Microsoft Excel (see Example 
3) was created to present the score for each subject based on nine questions of the BASS 
scale (see body satisfaction section in Appendix C). Adding nine ratings and dividing by 
nine, the total BASS mean scores were calculated. Each column provided the total mean 
score for the BASS questionnaire for each subject for the three observation periods. 
?High composite scorers are generally content with most areas of their body. Low scorers 
are unhappy with the size or appearance of several areas? (Cash, 2000, p.3).  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 63
Example 3.  
 
BASS questionnaire data of female and male subjects from the beginning of fall, end of 
fall, and end of spring semester (observations: 1, 2, and 3) 
Subject (n=36) 1 2 3 456789Total Composite Score Mean
Subject-1 (BF)? 
Subject-1 (EF)
b 
Subject-1 (ES)
c
 
4 
5 
4 
5 
5 
5 
4 
5 
2 
1
2
4
4
4
5
2
3
4
3
4
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
32 
37 
39 
3.56 
4.11 
4.33 
Note. Data are presented using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 to 5) 
?Beginning of fall semester is represented as (BF) 
b
End of fall semester is represented as (EF) 
c
End of spring semester is represented as (ES) 
 
Qualitative analysis of the data collected was used to investigate a difference or 
commonality between male and female subjects based on their body satisfaction. Body 
satisfaction was further examined based on weight gain, weight loss, and no change in 
weight over the longitudinal observation periods. Weight change was categorized as 
weight gain, weight loss, and no change in weight over the longitudinal observation 
periods. T-tests for dependent samples (within-group variation) were conducted to look 
for significant differences in body satisfaction within each observation period. For 
example, in observation period 1, means at the beginning of fall semester were compared 
to means at the end of fall semester for each weight change group and sex. Comparisons 
were also made between each of the observation periods. 
 64
Research Question 4: Is there a change in cognitive appearance investment, and if so, is 
it related to weight gain or weight loss over the three observations? 
 To answer this research question, cognitive appearance investment was observed 
by using the ASI-R scale. Two subscales divide the ASI-R scale: Self-Evaluative 
Salience and Motivational Salience (see body image section in Appendix C). The Self-
Evaluative Salience subscale is based on the mean score of 12-items (2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 
14, 15, 16, 19, and 20), and the Motivational Salience subscale is based on the mean 
score of 8-items (1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 17, and 18). Six of the total 20 items are reverse 
scored: 1, 4, 5, 9, 11, and 12 (i.e., 1 = 5, 2 = 4, 4 = 2, 5 = 1). The composite ASI-R score 
is based on the mean of the 20 items. A table in Microsoft Excel was created presenting 
the overall means and standard deviations of the ASI-R and its two subscales as a 
function of male and female subjects (see Example 4). The greater the means, the higher 
levels of self-evaluative and motivational investment the subjects have. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 65
Example 4.  
 
ASI-R questionnaire data of female and male subjects from the beginning of fall, end of 
fall, and end of spring semester (observations: 1, 2, and 3) 
Subject (n=36) 1 2 3 4567?Self-Evaluative 
Mean 
Motivational  
Mean 
Overall
Mean 
Subject-1 (BF)? 
Subject-1 (EF)
b 
Subject-1 (ES)
c
 
4 
3 
3 
2 
1 
2 
5 
5 
4 
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
4
4
2
3
3
-- 
-- 
-- 
1.83 
2.42 
2.42 
3.75 
4 
4 
2.6 
3.05 
3.05 
Note. Data are presented using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 to 5) 
Not all data is shown for example subject-1 
ASI-R questionnaire data consists of 20 items, hence (--)  
?Beginning of fall semester is represented as (BF) 
b
End of fall semester is represented as (EF) 
c
End of spring semester is represented as (ES) 
 
Qualitative analysis of the data collected was used to investigate a difference or 
commonality between male and female subjects based on cognitive investment in 
appearance. Cognitive investment in appearance was further examined based on weight 
gain, weight loss, and no change in weight over the longitudinal observation periods. 
Weight change was categorized as weight gain, weight loss, and no change in weight 
over the longitudinal observation periods. T-tests for dependent samples (within-group 
variation) were conducted to look for significant differences in cognitive investment in 
appearance within each observation period. For example, in observation period 1, means 
 66
at the beginning of fall semester were compared to means at the end of fall semester for 
each weight change group and sex. Comparisons were also made between each of the 
observation periods. 
The Self-Evaluative Salience subscale assesses an individual?s beliefs about how 
his/her looks influence his/her personal or social worth and sense of self (Cash, 2003). 
The Motivational Salience assesses the importance placed on maintaining appearance 
through grooming behaviors. These two subscales both aid in discovering the differences 
and/or similarities in young men and women. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 67
CHAPTER IV. PRESENTATION AND DATA ANALYSIS 
 
The purpose of this study was to longitudinally assess the ?Freshman 15? 
construct by investigating young men?s and women?s size and shape changes based on 
their three-dimensional body scan measurements and their body image constructs (body 
satisfaction/dissatisfaction and cognitive investments in appearance). Male and female 
subjects were analyzed together and separately. Data collection occurred at three points 
in time: (1) the beginning of fall semester 2006; (2) the end of fall semester 2006; and (3) 
the end of spring semester 2007. 
 
Subjects 
A total of 36 subjects (26 females, 10 males) volunteered for the study at the 
beginning of fall semester. At the end of fall semester, all 36 subjects returned for the 
follow-up assessments. However, data from one female subject was not included in the 
data analysis due to an eating disorder diagnosis. At the end of spring semester, 30 
subjects (22 females, 8 males) returned for the follow-up assessments. As previously, 
data from the one female subject with the suspected eating disorder was not included in 
the data analysis for spring semester. Thus, 29 subjects (21 females, 8 males) were used 
in the spring semester data collection. 
 
 68
Demographic Profiles of Subjects 
Demographic variables were coded individually for each data collection period. 
Demographic variables included the following: sex (see Table 1), age, race (see Table 2), 
family income (see Table 3), permanent residence (see Table 4), school residence (see 
Table 5), smoking habit (see Table 6), and alcohol consumption (see Table 6). 
 
Table 1.  
Sex 
 Beginning of Fall 
n = 36 
End of Fall
n = 35 
End of Spring
n = 29 
Gender 
Female 
Male 
 
26(72%) 
10(28%) 
 
25(71%) 
10(29%) 
 
21(72%) 
8(28%) 
Note. Data are presented as n (%) 
 
 
Table 2.  
Race 
 Caucasian African American Hispanic
Beginning of Fall 
n=36 
 
33(92%) 
 
1(3%) 
 
2(5%) 
Note. Data are presented as n (%) 
 69
Of the sample at the beginning of the fall (n=36), the majority of the sample was 
between the ages 17 and 19. The mean age at the beginning of the fall was 18.08. From 
the percentages shown in Table 2, it may be noted that 92% of the sample (n = 36) 
consisted of Caucasian Americans; hence, the results obtained from this study would be 
applicable to Caucasian American college students. 
 
Table 3.  
Family Income 
 Beginning of Fall
n=36 
30,000-50,000 
50,000-70,000 
70,000-90,000 
90,000-110,000 
110,000-130,000 
130,000-150,000 
>150,000 
Unknown 
1(2.8%) 
2(5.6%) 
3(8.3%) 
2(5.6%) 
2(5.6%) 
2(5.6%) 
7(19.4%) 
17(47.2%) 
Note. Data are presented as n (%) 
 
 Of the respondents, 47.2%, (n=17) did not know about the status of their family 
income (see Table 3). A family income of 150,000 and above was shown to have the 
second highest percentage of 19.4% (n=7) of the respondents.  
 70
Table 4.  
Permanent Residence 
 Beginning of Fall
n=36 
Alabama 
Georgia 
Florida 
South Carolina 
Texas 
Delaware 
North Carolina 
Tennessee 
Virginia 
Wyoming 
19(53%) 
6(17%) 
2(6%) 
2(6%) 
2(6%) 
1(3%) 
1(3%) 
1(3%) 
1(3%) 
1(3%) 
Note. Data are presented as n (%) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 71
Table 5.  
School Residence 
 Beginning of Fall
n=36 
End of Fall
n=35 
End of Spring 
n=29 
Apartment/House 
Female 
Male 
On- or Off- Campus Dorm 
Female  
Male 
 
3(33%) 
6(67%) 
 
23(85%) 
4(15%) 
 
3(33%) 
6(67%) 
 
22(85%) 
4(15%) 
 
3(43%) 
4(57%) 
 
18(82%) 
4(18%) 
Note. Data are presented as n (%) 
 
Of the respondents, 53% (n=36) were permanent residents of Alabama, 17% of 
Georgia, and 6% for each state of Florida, South Carolina, and Texas (see Table 4).  
Most of the males lived in apartments or houses (see Table 5). The majority of the 
females lived in on- or off- campus dorms.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 72
Table 6.  
Smoking and Alcohol Consumption 
 Beginning of Fall
n=36 
End of Fall
n=35 
End of Spring 
n=29 
Smoke 
No 
Yes 
Alcohol Consumption 
No 
Yes 
 
31(86%) 
5(14%) 
 
17(47%) 
19(53%) 
 
27(77%) 
8(23%) 
 
10(29%) 
25(71%) 
 
26(90%) 
3(10%) 
 
6(21%) 
23(79%) 
Note. Data are presented as n (%) 
 
The majority of the subjects did not smoke, although there were some subjects 
who began to smoke once attending college (see Table 6). At the end of spring semester, 
90% of the respondents did not smoke. Slightly more than half of the subjects consumed 
alcohol at the beginning of freshman year. This increased from the beginning to end of 
fall semester, and from then to the end of spring semester. 
 
Data Analyses 
Quantitative analyses were performed using the software Instat Version 3.0 
(GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA) and Microsoft Office Excel 2004 (Microsoft 
Corporation, Redmond, WA). Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was 
used to compare BMI, body composition, and body weight among the three observation 
 73
periods: (1) beginning of fall semester and the end of fall semester; (2) end of fall 
semester and the end of spring semester; and (3) beginning of fall semester and the end of 
spring semester. Statistically significant findings using ANOVA were followed by 
Tukey?s multiple comparisons test. Statistical significance was set at p-value of < 0.05. 
Means and standard deviations were calculated for each variable studied. Differences in 
sex characteristics and differences in observation period 1, observation period 2, and 
observation period 3 were analyzed using general linear models for repeated measures, 
with sex and weight change groups (weight gain and weight loss/no change) as 
covariates. For weight change groups, a subject was categorized as having gained weight 
if she/he gained > 0.1 pounds, and a subject was categorized as having lost weight or no 
change in weight (maintained exact weight from first observation) if she/he had no 
weight change or lost > 0.1 pounds. T-tests for dependent samples (within-group 
variation) were conducted to look for significant differences in weight change, body 
satisfaction, and cognitive investment in appearance within each observation period. For 
example, in observation period 1, means at the beginning of fall semester were compared 
to means at the end of fall semester for each weight change group and sex. Statistical 
significance was set at p-value of  < 0.05. Comparisons were also made between each of 
the observation periods. 
Descriptive analyses were used to examine subjects? differences and/or 
similarities in body scan measurements and body image (body satisfaction and 
investment in appearance) in relation to the three observation periods and weight change 
groups. Data presented include group means and standard deviations as well as data split 
by sex and/or weight change groups. 
 74
Linking Body Mass Index and Body Composition 
For the purposes of this longitudinal study and as a part of a larger longitudinal 
study dealing with the dietary and nutritional aspects, body mass index (BMI) and body 
fat percentage warrant discussion. The metric formula for calculating the BMI is [Weight 
in Kilograms/Height in meters square]. The BMI categories for adults followed by the 
Centers for Disease Control were used (see Table 7). 
 
Table 7.  
 
BMI Chart 
 
BMI Weight Status
Below 18.5 
18.5 ? 24.9 
25.0 ? 29.9 
30.0 and above 
Underweight 
Normal 
Overweight 
Obese 
Note. Source: CDC Web page (http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/bmi/bmi-adult.htm) 
 
BMI Distribution  
All female and male subjects were measured for height and weight using standard 
techniques. Weight was measured to the nearest 0.1 lb using a digital scale (Health-O-
Meter, Sunbeam Products, Model # HDL543DQ-95, Boca Raton, FL) on a level floor. To 
verify the digital scale for accuracy, external weights were used. For each weighing, 
subjects wore their street clothes and were asked to remove all outerwear and shoes. They 
were also asked to empty their pockets of any heavy items such as keys or cell phones. 
 75
Height was measured to the nearest one-quarter inch using a fixed measuring tape placed 
on the wall and a headboard using standard techniques. In order to measure the height of 
the subjects, each subject stood flat foot without their shoes, with his or her heels, 
buttocks, upper back, and head (looking straight forward) against a wall with a fixed 
measuring tape. These values (weight and height) were then converted to the metric 
equivalent so that BMI could be calculated.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 76
Table 8.  
 
BMI distribution for female and male subjects at the beginning of fall and end of fall 
semester (observation period 1) 
Sex/Time BMI? (kg/m
2
)
 
Female (n=25) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Fall 
 
 
 
21.0 + 2.2 
 
21.4 + 2.2* 
 
 
Male (n=10) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Fall 
 
 
 
 
25.9 + 4.1 
 
26.1 + 4.1 
 
All Subjects (n=35) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Fall 
 
 
 
 
22.4 + 3.6 
 
22.7 + 3.6* 
Note. Mean + SD 87 + 14 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
*Statistically significantly (p < 0.05) greater than beginning of fall values 
 
For observation period 1 (see Table 8), of the 25 females, two were initially 
underweight (BMI < 18.5 kg/m
2
); 22 were normal weight (BMI 18.5 ? 24.9 kg/m
2
), and 
one was overweight (BMI 25.0 ? 29.9 kg/m
2
). Mean BMI significantly increased from 
21.0 + 2.2 kg/m
2
 to 21.4 + 2.2 kg/m
2
. By the end of fall semester, two of the females 
classified by BMI as normal weight for the beginning of fall semester moved to the 
 77
overweight classification for BMI. Of the 10 males, five were initially normal weight, 
four were overweight, and one was obese (BMI > 30.0 kg/m
2
). By the end of fall 
semester, one of the males classified by BMI as normal weight at the beginning of the fall 
moved to the overweight classification for BMI. For all of the subjects combined (n=35), 
mean BMI significantly increased from 22.4 + 3.6 kg/m
2
 to 22.7 + 3.6 kg/m
2
. The 
average number of days between the measurements was 87 + 14 days. 
 
 
Table 9.  
 
BMI distribution for female and male subjects at the end of fall and end of spring 
semester (observation period 2) 
Sex/Time BMI? (kg/m
2
)
 
Female (n=21) 
 
End of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
 
 
21.4 + 2.2 
 
21.6 + 2.2 
 
Male (n=8) 
 
End of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
 
 
25.7 + 4.3 
 
26.2 + 4.9 
 
All Subjects (n=29) 
 
End of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
 
 
 
22.6 + 3.5 
 
22.9 + 3.7 
Note. Mean + SD 141 + 6 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
 
 78
For observation period 2 (see Table 9), of the 21 females, one was classified by 
BMI as underweight, 17 were classified as normal weight, and three were classified as 
overweight. No significant changes were found in mean BMI for the females and none of 
the female subjects changed BMI classifications from the end of fall to the end of spring 
semester. Of the 8 males, four were classified by BMI as normal weight, three were 
classified as overweight, and one was classified as obese. No significant changes were 
found in mean BMI for the male subjects and no changes in their BMI classifications 
were found from the end of fall to the end of spring semester. For all subjects combined 
(n=29), mean BMI significantly increased from 22.6 + 3.5 kg/m
2
 to 22.9 + 3.7 kg/m
2
. The 
average number of days between the measurements taken at the end of fall semester and 
the end of spring semester was 141 + 6 days. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 79
Table 10.  
 
BMI distribution for female and male subjects at the beginning of fall and end of spring 
semester (observation period 3) 
Sex/Time BMI? (kg/m
2
)
 
Female (n=21) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
 
 
21.1 + 2.2 
 
21.6 + 2.2* 
 
Male (n=8) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
 
 
25.4 + 4.3 
 
26.2 + 4.9* 
 
All Subjects (n=29) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
 
 
 
22.2 + 3.4 
 
22.9 + 3.7* 
Note. Mean + SD 229 + 14 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
*Statistically significantly (p < 0.05) greater than beginning values 
 
In observation period 3 (see Table 10), for both female subjects (n=21) and male 
subjects (n=8), mean BMI significantly increased for each group, from the beginning of 
fall to the end of spring semester. For all subjects combined (n=29) for the academic 
year, from the beginning of fall to the end of spring semester, mean BMI significantly 
increased from 22.2 + 3.4 kg/m
2
 to 22.9 + 3.7 kg/m
2
. By the end of the academic year, 
one subject was classified by BMI as underweight, 21 subjects were classified as normal 
 80
weight, six subjects were classified as overweight, and one subject was classified as 
obese. Three subjects that were classified by BMI as normal weight at the beginning of 
the fall were classified as overweight at the end of spring semester.  
 
Body Composition 
Body composition was taken using bioelectrical impedance (BodyStat 1500, 
BioVant Systems, Detroit, MI). Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) measures the 
impedance of an electrical current (50kHz) through the human body issues. This 
instrument generates an electrical current, which is then passed through the body by 
means of four electrodes placed at specific locations on the right hand and wrist, and right 
foot and ankle. Each subject was asked to rest in a supine position on a covered floor 
space for five minutes in order to reach a desired state of rest, along with removing their 
sock and shoe on the right foot and ankle. Their limbs were positioned at a 30-45 degree 
angle from the trunk of the body. By measuring the resistance to impedance between the 
electrodes, an estimate of body water was made present. This information in concurrence 
with the subject?s gender, age, height, and weight are entered into the instrument to 
enable the calculation of body fat and fat free mass. Since hydration status affects the 
accuracy of BIA, subjects were instructed not to consume liquids, especially those 
containing caffeine or alcohol, or eat for 2-4 hours prior to testing,. They were also 
instructed not to engage in strenuous exercise 12 hours prior to testing. Due to these 
restrictions, subjects were purposely measured in the morning hours during all three 
testing periods in order to ensure accuracy. 
 
 81
Table 11.  
 
Body composition for female and male subjects at the beginning of fall and end of fall 
semester (observation period 1) 
Sex/Time Body Fat? (%)
 
Female (n=25) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Fall 
 
 
 
22.2 + 4.1 
 
23.2 + 3.9* 
 
Male (n=10) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Fall 
 
 
 
14.2 + 5.4 
 
15.1 + 4.8* 
 
All Subjects (n=35) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Fall 
 
 
 
 
19.9 + 5.7 
 
20.9 + 5.5* 
Note. Mean + SD 87 + 14 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
*Statistically significantly (p < 0.05) greater than beginning of fall values 
 
In observation period 1 (see Table 11), the females? (n=25) mean percent body fat 
significantly increased from 22.2 + 4.1% to 23.2 + 3.9% by the end of fall semester (see 
Table 11). Of the males (n=10), mean percent body fat significantly increased from 14.2 
+ 5.4% to 15.1 + 4.8% by the end of fall semester. For all subjects combined (n=35), 
mean percent body fat significantly increased from 19.9 + 5.7% to 20.9 + 5.5%.  
 
 82
Table 12.  
 
Body composition for female and male subjects at the end of fall and end of spring 
semester (observation period 2) 
Sex/Time Body Fat? (%)
 
Female (n=21) 
 
End of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
 
 
 
23.7 + 3.6 
 
23.6 + 3.3 
Male (n=8) 
 
End of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
 
 
14.2 + 4.8 
 
14.8 + 5.8 
All Subjects (n=29) 
 
End of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
 
 
21.1 + 5.8 
 
21.2 + 5.7 
Note. Mean + SD 141 + 6 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
 
 For observation period 2 (see Table 12), of the females (n=21), no significant 
change was found in mean percent body fat. Of the males (n=8), no significant change 
was found in mean percent body fat. 
 
 
 
 
 83
Table 13.  
Body composition for female and male subjects at the beginning of fall and end of spring 
semester (observation period 3) 
Sex/Time Body Fat? (%)
 
Female (n=21) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
 
 
22.7 + 3.8 
 
23.6 + 3.3* 
 
Male (n=8) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
 
 
13.1 + 5.3 
 
14.8 + 5.8* 
 
All Subjects (n=29) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
 
 
 
20.1 + 6.0 
 
21.2 + 5.7* 
Note. Mean + SD 229 + 14 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
*Statistically significantly (p < 0.05) greater than beginning values 
 
 In observation period 3 (see Table 13), for both female subjects (n=21) and male 
subjects (n=8), mean percent body fat significantly increased for each group, from the 
beginning of fall to the end of spring semester. For all subjects combined (n=29), for the 
academic year, from the beginning of fall to the end of spring semester, mean percent 
body fat increased significantly from 20.1 + 6.0% to 21.2 + 5.7%. 
 
 84
Results 
Research Question 1: Is there a change in weight over the longitudinal observations? 
 To answer this research question, male and female weight changes were 
calculated in pounds over the three observation periods. Weight was measured to the 
nearest 0.1 lb using a digital scale (Health-O-Meter, Sunbeam Products, Model # 
HDL543DQ-95, Boca Raton, FL) on a level floor. To verify the digital scale for 
accuracy, external weights were used.  
A table in Microsoft Excel was created presenting the +/- weight variations for 
each period for each subject, with the male and female subjects divided by sex; within 
each sex, weight loss, no change in weight, and weight gain was listed. Columns 
presented the actual weight measured for each observation period and the difference 
between observations 1 and 2; 2 and 3; 1 and 3. Subject?s t-test was used to compare 
differences in weight change of females and males, as well as used to examine the 
differences in weight change in relation to two categories: (1) weight gain and (2) weight 
loss/no change in weight. Due to an exceptionally small number of students maintaining 
their weight over the observation periods, the no change in weight group was combined 
with the weight loss group. This combined weight loss/no change in weight group was 
the most logical approach to evaluate the data for a relatively small sample size. A 
subject was categorized as having gained weight if she/he gained > 0.1 pounds, and a 
subject was categorized as having lost weight or no change in weight (maintained exact 
weight from first observation) if she/he had no weight change or lost > 0.1 pounds. 
Statistical significance was set at p-value of < 0.05.  
 
 85
Table 14.  
 
Body weight for female and male subjects at the beginning of fall and end of fall semester 
(observation period 1) 
Sex/Time Body Weight? (lb)
 
Female (n=25) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Fall 
 
 
 
124.9 + 16.6 
 
126.9 + 16.4* 
 
Male (n=10) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Fall 
 
 
 
174.4 + 24.6 
 
176.1 + 25.5 
 
All Subjects (n=35) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Fall 
 
 
 
 
139.0 + 29.5 
 
140.91 + 3.78* 
Note. Mean + SD 87 + 14 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
*Statistically significantly (p < 0.05) greater than beginning of fall values 
 
 For observation period 1 (see Table 14), of the 25 females, mean initial weight 
was 124.9 + 16.6 pounds. By the end of fall semester, the females? mean weight 
significantly increased to 126.9 + 16.4 pounds. Of the 10 males, mean initial weight was 
174.4 + 24.6 pounds. By the end of fall semester, the males? mean weight had not 
significantly changed. For all subjects combined (n=35), mean weight significantly 
increased from the beginning of the fall with 139.0 + 29.5 pounds to the end of the fall 
 86
semester with 140.9 + 3.78. Mean weight gain was 1.9 + 3.8 pounds. Weight change 
ranged from a loss of 5 pounds to a gain of 10 pounds. About 70% of the subjects gained 
weight during fall semester. 
 
 
Table 15.  
 
Body weight for female and male subjects at the end of fall and end of spring semester 
(observation period 2) 
Sex/Time Body Weight? (lb)
 
Female (n=21) 
 
End of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
 
 
126.5 + 16.3 
 
127.9 + 17.3** 
 
Male (n=8) 
 
End of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
 
 
172.8 + 27.6 
 
176.0 + 29.7 
 
All Subjects (n=29) 
 
End of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
 
 
 
139.3 + 28.7 
 
141.2 + 30.2* 
Note. Mean + SD 141 + 6 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
*Statistically significantly (p < 0.05) greater than end of fall values 
 
For observation period 2 (see Table 15), of the 21 females, mean weight at the 
end of fall semester to the end of spring semester showed no significant changes. Like the 
 87
females, no significant changes were found in mean weight for the 8 males. For all 
subjects combined (n=29), mean weight significantly increased from 139.3 + 28.7 pounds 
to 141.2 + 30.2 lbs. Mean weight gain was 1.9 + 4.1 pounds. Weight change from the end 
of the fall semester to the end of spring semester ranged from a loss of 5 pounds to a gain 
of 11.4 pounds. About 59% of the subjects gained weight. 
 
Table 16.  
 
Body weight for female and male subjects at the beginning of fall and end of spring 
semester (observation period 3) 
Sex/Time Body Weight? (lb)
 
Female (n=21) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
 
 
124.7 + 16.5 
 
127.9 + 17.3* 
 
Male (n=8) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
 
 
170.6 + 26.2 
 
176.0 + 29.7* 
 
All Subjects (n=29) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
 
 
 
137.3 + 28.4 
 
141.2 + 30.2* 
Note. Mean + SD 229 + 14 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
*Statistically significantly (p < 0.05) greater than beginning values 
 
 88
 In observation period 3 (see Table 16), for all subjects combined (n=29) for the 
academic year, from the beginning of fall semester to the end of spring semester, mean 
weight increased significantly from 137.3 + 28.4 pounds to 141.2 + 30.2 pounds at the 
end of spring semester. Mean weight gain was 3.8 + 5.0 pounds. A total of 76% of female 
and male subjects gained weight during their first, academic year of college as freshman 
students. 
Weight change for the females (n=21) averaged a 3.2 + 5.1 pounds gain, and for 
the males (n=8), a 5.4 + 4.5 pounds gain. Weight change over the academic year ranged 
from a loss of 5.8 pounds to a gain of 13 pounds. Of the 21 females, 38% gained weight 
both fall and spring semesters, 33% gained weight fall semester and either lost weight or 
did not change weight spring semester, 14% lost weight both fall and spring semesters, 
and 14% lost weight or did not change weight fall semester and gained weight spring 
semester. 
Of the 8 males, 50% gained weight both fall and spring semesters, 25% gained 
weight fall semester and either lost weight or did not change weight spring semester, and 
25% lost weight or did not change weight fall semester and gained weight spring 
semester. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 89
Summary 
 In observation period 1 (fall semester), out of the 21 females, the mean weight 
gain of the females who gained weight (n=15) was 3.82 pounds. Out of the 8 males, the 
mean weight gain of the males who gained weight (n=6) was 3.37 pounds. The mean 
weight loss of the females who lost weight (n=6) was -3.07 pounds, and the mean weight 
loss of the males who lost weight (n=2) was -1.3 pounds. No subjects in observation 
period 1 maintained their body weight or had no change in their body weight, from the 
beginning of fall semester to the end of fall semester. 
 In observation period 2 (spring semester), out of the 21 females, the mean weight 
gain of the females who gained weight (n=11) was 4.06 pounds. Of the 8 males, the mean 
weight gain of the males who gained weight (n=6) was 5.33 pounds. The mean weight 
loss of the females who lost weight (n=8) was -1.95 pounds. The mean weight loss of the 
males who lost weight (n=2) was -3.4 pounds. The remaining female subjects (n=2) of 
the sample maintained their body weight or had no change in their body weight over 
observation period 2. No male subjects maintained their body weight over observation 
period 2. 
 In observation period 3 (academic year), out of the 21 females, the mean weight 
gain of the females who gained weight (n=15) was 5.6 pounds. Out of the 8 males, the 
mean weight gain of the males who gained weight (n=7) was 6.23 pounds. The mean 
weight loss of the females who lost weight (n=5) was -3.2 pounds. The mean weight loss 
of the males who lost weight (n=1) was -0.8 pounds. Only one female subject of the 
sample (n=21) maintained their body weight or had no change in weight over observation 
 90
period 3. No male subjects of the sample (n=8) maintained their body weight over 
observation period 3. 
 The female and male subjects who gained weight each semester had higher mean 
weight gains in the second semester. The female subjects who lost weight in observation 
period 2 actually lost less body weight on average than the female subjects who lost 
weight in observation period 1. The male subjects who lost weight in observation period 
2 lost more body weight on average than the male subjects who lost body weight in 
observation period 1.  
Due to an exceptionally small number of students maintaining their weight or 
having no change in weight over the observation periods (two females in observation 
period 2 and one female in observation period 3), the no change in weight group was 
combined with the weight loss group. This combined weight loss/no change in weight 
group was the most logical approach to evaluate the data for a relatively small sample 
size. An assumption was made that subjects? responses on the body image questionnaires 
who had no change in weight would be somewhat consistent with the subjects? responses 
who lost weight. Some of the subjects who lost weight over the observation periods had a 
relatively small amount of weight loss of less than 1 pound, so this justified those 
subjects who had no change in weight to be grouped with the weight loss group. 
  
Research Question 2: If there is weight change, do body measurements change at the 
bicep, neck, bust/chest, natural waist, hips, or thighs? 
To answer this research question, a table in Microsoft Excel was created 
presenting the body measurements (for males ? bicep, neck, chest, natural waist, hips, 
 91
and thighs and for females ? bicep, neck, bust, natural waist, hips, and thighs) calculated 
in inches for each of the three observation periods and providing the +/- numeric 
variations between each period for each subject, with male and female subjects divided 
by sex. Columns presented the actual body measurements for each observation period 
and the difference between observations 1 and 2; 2 and 3; 1 and 3. Each body 
measurement was grouped for each subject (to better assess differences or similarities 
related to each body measurement).  
The 3D body scanner used in this study was developed by the Textile/Clothing 
Technology Corporation ([TC]
2
). The margin of error of the [TC]
2
 NX12 is relatively 
minimal. The point accuracy is within 1 millimeter and the circumferential measurement 
is within 3 millimeters. The body measurement extractions collected by this specific body 
scanner are defined as followed ([TC]
2
, 1999): 
 Bicep ? the circumference of the arm taken about 2 inches below the armpit. 
 Neck ? the circumference measured right at the base of the neck following the 
contours. 
 Chest ? measured horizontally at the armpit level just above the bustline. 
 Bust ? the horizontal circumference taken across the bust points at the fullest part 
of the chest. 
Natural waist ? the smallest circumference between the bust and hips determined 
by locating the small of the back and then going up and down a predetermined 
amount for a starting-point to find the waist. 
Hips ? the largest circumference between the waist and the crotch. 
Thighs ? the circumference 2 inches below the crotch. 
 92
Table 17.  
 
Body scan measurement changes and ?weight gain? group for female subjects (n=15) 
between the beginning of fall and end of fall semester (observation period 1) 
Body Scan Measurement  
 
Bicep? 
 
0.34 + 0.44
 
Neck? 
 
0.57 + 0.37
 
Bust?  
 
0.01 + 1.26
 
Waist?  
 
0.29 + 0.80
 
Hips?  
 
0.41 + 0.56
 
Thighs?  
 
 
0.26 + 0.70
Note. Mean + SD 87 + 14 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
Means of body scan measurements are shown in inches 
Measurements between -0.13 and 0.13 are within the margin of error for accuracy 
 
For observation period 1 (see Table 17), of the females? weight gain group 
(n=15), the neck increased the most (more than one-half of an inch) out of all 
measurement changes shown for fall semester. Following the neck measurement increase, 
the hips increased (about two-fifths of an inch), the bicep increased (about one-third of an 
inch), the waist increased (about one-third of an inch), and the thighs increased (about 
one-fourth of an inch) for fall semester. The bust measurement had a negligible increase. 
Measurements between -0.13 and 0.13 are of relatively no importance to this study (that 
is only about (+/-) one-eighth of an inch).  
 93
Table 18.  
 
Body scan measurement changes and ?weight loss/no change? group for female subjects 
(n=6) between the beginning of fall and end of fall semester (observation period 1) 
Body Scan Measurement  
 
Bicep?  
 
-0.14 + 0.36
 
Neck?  
 
0.13 + 0.86 
 
Bust?  
 
-0.07 + 1.52
 
Waist?  
 
-0.88 + 0.66
 
Hips?  
 
-0.75 + 0.49
 
Thighs?  
 
-0.53 + 0.89
Note. Mean + SD 87 + 14 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
Means of body scan measurements are shown in inches 
Measurements between -0.13 and 0.13 are within the margin of error for accuracy 
 
For observation period 1 (see Table 18), of the females? weight loss/no change 
group (n=6), the neck had a negligible increase for fall semester. The body scan 
measurement changes of the waist (about seven-eighths of an inch) decreased the most 
out of all measurement changes shown for fall semester. Following the waist 
measurement decrease, the hips decreased (about three-fourths of an inch), and the thighs 
decreased (about one-half of an inch). The bicep and bust measurements had negligible 
decreases. 
 
 
 
 94
Table 19.  
 
Body scan measurement changes and ?weight gain? group for male subjects (n=6) 
between the beginning of fall and end of fall semester (observation period 1) 
Body Scan Measurement  
 
Bicep?  
 
0.37 + 0.32 
 
Neck?  
 
0.005 + 0.78
 
Chest?  
 
-0.06 + 0.66 
 
Waist?  
 
0.50 + 0.49 
 
Hips?  
 
0.11 + 0.46 
 
Thighs?  
 
 
0.90 + 0.90 
Note. Mean + SD 87 + 14 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
Means of body scan measurements are shown in inches 
Measurements between -0.13 and 0.13 are within the margin of error for accuracy 
 
For observation period 1 (see Table 19), of the males? weight gain group (n=6), 
the thighs increased the most (nearly one inch) out of all measurement changes shown for 
fall semester. Following the thigh measurement increase, the waist increased (one-half of 
an inch), and the bicep increased (about three-eighths of an inch). The hips and neck 
measurements had negligible increases. The body scan measurement changes of the chest 
were the only measurement to show a negligible decrease for fall semester. 
 
 
 95
Table 20.  
Body scan measurement changes and ?weight loss/no change? group for male subjects 
(n=2) between the beginning of fall and end of fall semester (observation period 1) 
Body Scan Measurement  
 
Bicep? 
 
0.28 + 0.16 
 
Neck?  
 
0.02 + 0.44 
 
Chest?  
 
0.47 + 0.79 
 
Waist?  
 
-0.16 + 0.69
 
Hips?  
 
0.20 + 0.29 
 
Thighs?  
 
 
-0.74 + 0.65
Note. Mean + SD 87 + 14 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
Means of body scan measurements are shown in inches 
Measurements between -0.13 and 0.13 are within the margin of error for accuracy 
 
For observation period 1 (see Table 20), of the males? weight loss/no change 
group (n=2), it appears that the body scan measurement changes of the thighs (about 
three-fourths of an inch) and waist (about one-sixth of an inch) were the only 
measurements to show a decrease for fall semester. The body scan measurement changes 
of the thighs decreased the most out of all measurement changes shown for fall semester. 
All other body scan measurements had increases, which included the hips (about one-
fifth of an inch), the bicep (about one-fourth of an inch), and the chest (about one-half of 
 96
an inch). The chest measurement provided the most amount of increase for fall semester. 
The neck measurement had a negligible increase.  
 
 
Table 21.  
 
Body scan measurement changes and ?weight gain? group for female subjects (n=11) 
between the end of fall and end of spring semester (observation period 2) 
Body Scan Measurement  
 
Bicep?  
 
0.08 + 0.39 
 
Neck?  
 
-0.18 + 0.60
 
Bust?  
 
0.64 + 1.40 
 
Waist?  
 
0.85 + 1.21 
 
Hips?  
 
0.46 + 0.58 
 
Thighs?  
 
0.46 + 0.72 
Note. Mean + SD 141 + 6 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
Means of body scan measurements are shown in inches 
Measurements between -0.13 and 0.13 are within the margin of error for accuracy 
 
For observation period 2 (see Table 21), of the females? weight gain group 
(n=11), the waist increased the most (nearly seven-eighths of an inch) out of all 
measurement changes shown for spring semester. Following the waist measurement 
increase, the bust increased (about five-eighths of an inch), the hips increased (nearly 
one-half of an inch), and the thighs increased (nearly one-half of an inch). The bicep 
 97
measurement had a negligible increase. The neck measurement, which was relatively 
small (nearly one-fifth of an inch), was the only measurement to decrease for spring 
semester. 
 
 
Table 22.  
 
Body scan measurement changes and ?weight loss/no change? group for female subjects 
(n=10) between the end of fall and end of spring semester (observation period 2) 
Body Scan Measurement  
 
Bicep?  
 
-0.17 + 0.15
 
Neck?  
 
-0.50 + 0.62
 
Bust?  
 
-0.58 + 0.65
 
Waist?  
 
-0.20 + 0.94
 
Hips?  
 
-0.29 + 0.21
 
Thighs?  
 
 
-0.22 + 0.27
Note. Mean + SD 141 + 6 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
Means of body scan measurements are shown in inches 
Measurements between -0.13 and 0.13 are within the margin of error for accuracy 
 
For observation period 2 (see Table 22), of the females? weight loss/no change 
group (n=10), the bust decreased the most (nearly five-eighths of an inch) out of all 
measurement changes for spring semester. Following the bust measurement decrease, the 
neck decreased (one-half of an inch), and the hips decreased (nearly one-third of an inch). 
 98
The thigh, waist, and bicep measurements all decreased about one-fifth of an inch, which 
were relatively small decreases.   
 
 
Table 23.  
 
Body scan measurement changes and ?weight gain? group for male subjects (n=6) 
between the end of fall and end of spring semester (observation period 2) 
Body Scan Measurement  
 
Bicep?  
 
0.13 + 0.26 
 
Neck?  
 
0.15 + 0.91 
 
Chest?  
 
0.99 + 0.83 
 
Waist?  
 
0.24 + 0.42 
 
Hips?  
 
0.28 + 0.42 
 
Thighs?  
 
 
-0.18 + 0.58
Note. Mean + SD 141 + 6 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
Means of body scan measurements are shown in inches 
Measurements between -0.13 and 0.13 are within the margin of error for accuracy 
 
For observation period 2 (see Table 23), of the males? weight gain group (n=6), 
the chest increased the most (about one inch) out of all measurement changes for spring 
semester. Following the chest measurement increase, the hips and the waist increased 
(each about one-fourth of an inch). The neck had a relatively small increase and the bicep 
 99
had a negligible increase. The thigh measurement had a negligible decrease for spring 
semester. 
 
Table 24.  
 
Body scan measurements and ?weight loss/no change? group for male subjects (n=2) 
between the end of fall and end of spring semester (observation period 2) 
Body Scan Measurement  
 
Bicep?  
 
0.17 + 0.11 
 
Neck?  
 
-0.13 + 0.52
 
Chest?  
 
0.06 + 0.37 
 
Waist?  
 
-0.07 + 0.35
 
Hips?  
 
-0.03 + 0.04
 
Thighs?  
 
 
-0.40 + 0.45
Note. Mean + SD 141 + 6 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
Means of body scan measurements are shown in inches 
Measurements between -0.13 and 0.13 are within the margin of error for accuracy 
 
For observation period 2 (see Table 24), of the males? weight loss/no change 
group (n=2), body scan measurement changes of the thighs decreased the most (about 
two-fifths of an inch) out of all measurement changes shown for spring semester. The 
neck, waist, and hips had negligible decreases. The bicep increased a relatively small 
amount. The chest measurement had a negligible increase.  
 100
Table 25.  
 
Body scan measurement changes and ?weight gain? group for female subjects (n=15) 
between the beginning of fall and end of spring semester (observation period 3) 
Body Scan Measurement  
 
Bicep?  
 
0.26 + 0.33
 
Neck?  
 
0.34 + 0.42
 
Bust?  
 
0.40 + 0.89
 
Waist?  
 
0.57 + 1.49
 
Hips?  
 
0.57 + 0.74
 
Thighs?  
 
 
0.44 + 0.49
Note. Mean + SD 229 + 14 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
Means of body scan measurements are shown in inches 
Measurements between -0.13 and 0.13 are within the margin of error for accuracy 
 
For observation period 3 (see Table 25), of the females? weight gain group 
(n=15), the hips (over one-half of an inch) and waist (over one-half of an inch) increased 
the most out of all measurement changes for the academic year. Following the hip and 
waist measurement increase, the thighs increased (nearly one-half of an inch), the bust 
increased (two-fifths of an inch), the neck increased (about one-third of an inch), and the 
bicep increased (about one-fourth of an inch). 
 
 
 
 101
Table 26.  
 
Body scan measurement changes and ?weight loss/no change? group for female subjects 
(n=6) between the beginning of fall and end of spring semester (observation period 3) 
Body Scan Measurement  
 
Bicep?  
 
-0.07 + 0.49
 
Neck?  
 
-0.46 + 0.79
 
Bust?  
 
-0.84 + 1.19
 
Waist?  
 
-0.33 + 1.11
 
Hips?  
 
-0.68 + 0.84
 
Thighs?  
 
 
-0.48 + 0.72
Note. Mean + SD 229 + 14 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
Means of body scan measurements are shown in inches 
Measurements between -0.13 and 0.13 are within the margin of error for accuracy 
 
For observation period 3 (see Table 26), of the females? weight loss/no change 
group (n=6), the bust decreased the most (nearly seven-eighths of an inch) out of all 
measurement changes shown for the academic year. Following the bust measurement 
decrease, the hips decreased (about two-thirds of an inch), the thighs decreased (nearly 
one-half of an inch), the neck decreased (nearly one-half of an inch), and the waist 
decreased (one-third of an inch). The bicep measurement had a negligible decrease.  
 
 
 102
Table 27.  
 
Body scan measurement changes and ?weight gain? group for male subjects (n=7) 
between the beginning of fall and end of spring semester (observation period 3) 
Body Scan Measurement  
 
Bicep?  
 
0.51 + 0.25
 
Neck?  
 
0.13 + 0.65
 
Chest?  
 
0.84 + 0.74
 
Waist?  
 
0.64 + 0.58
 
Hips?  
 
0.40 + 0.40
 
Thighs?  
 
 
0.37 + 0.95
Note. Mean + SD 229 + 14 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
Means of body scan measurements are shown in inches 
Measurements between -0.13 and 0.13 are within the margin of error for accuracy 
 
For observation period 3 (see Table 27), of the males? weight gain group (n=7), 
the chest increased the most (nearly seven-eighths of an inch) out of all measurement 
changes for the academic year. Following the chest measurement increase, the waist 
increased (nearly two-thirds of an inch), the bicep increased (about one-half of an inch), 
the hips increased (two-fifths of an inch), and the thighs increased (nearly two-fifths of an 
inch). The neck measurement had a negligible increase.  
 
 
 
 103
Table 28.  
 
Body scan measurement changes and ?weight loss/no change? group for male subjects 
(n=1) between the beginning of fall and end of spring semester (observation period 3) 
Body Scan Measurement Male (n=1) 
 
Bicep?  
 
-0.11 + 0.00
 
Neck?  
 
-0.24 + 0.00
 
Chest?  
 
0.80 + 0.00 
 
Waist?  
 
-0.52 + 0.00
 
Hips?  
 
-0.09 + 0.00
 
Thighs?  
 
 
-0.53 + 0.00
Note. Mean + SD 229 + 14 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
Means of body scan measurements are shown in inches 
Measurements between -0.13 and 0.13 are within the margin of error for accuracy 
 
For observation period 3 (see Table 28), of the males? weight loss/no change 
group (n=1), the thighs and waist both decreased the most (about one-half of an inch), out 
of all measurement changes for the academic year. Following the thigh and waist 
measurement decreases, the neck decreased (about one-fourth of an inch). The bicep and 
hip measurements had negligible decreases. The chest was the only measurement to 
increase (four-fifths of an inch) for the academic year. 
 
 
 104
Summary 
 When comparing the females? weight gain groups across the three observation 
periods, some patterns were found. In the females? weight gain group for observation 
period 1 (fall semester), the neck measurement increased the most with more than one-
half of an inch increase. In the females? weight gain group for observation period 2 
(spring semester), the measurements to increase the most were the waist (nearly seven-
eighths of an inch) and the bust (about five-eighths of an inch). In the females? weight 
gain group for observation period 3 (academic year), the measurements to increase the 
most were the hips (over one-half of an inch) and the waist (over one-half of an inch). 
There appeared to be common ?measurement-area? increases for the waist measurement 
in observation period 2 and 3. 
 When comparing the females? weight loss/no change groups across the three 
observation periods, some patterns were found. In the females? weight loss/no change 
group for observation period 1 (fall semester), the measurements that decreased the most 
were the waist (about seven-eighths of an inch), the hips (about three-fourths of an inch), 
and the thighs (about one-half of an inch). In the females? weight loss/no change group 
for observation period 2 (spring semester), the measurements with the most decrease 
were the bust (nearly five-eighths of an inch), the neck (one-half of an inch), and the hips 
(nearly one-third of an inch). In the females? weight loss/no change group for observation 
period 3 (academic year), the measurements with the most decrease were the bust (nearly 
seven-eighths of an inch), the hips (about two-thirds of an inch), the thighs (about one-
half of an inch), and the neck (nearly one-half of an inch). There appeared to be common 
?measurement-area? decreases for the hip measurement in observation periods 1, 2, and 
 105
3. There appeared to be common ?measurement-area? decreases for the thigh and hip 
measurement in observation periods 1 and 3. There appeared to be common 
?measurement-area? decreases for the bust, neck, and hip measurement in observation 
periods 2 and 3. 
 When comparing the males? weight gain groups across the three observation 
periods, patterns were found. In the males? weight gain group for observation period 1 
(fall semester), the measurements with the most increase were the thighs (nearly one 
inch), the waist (one-half of an inch), and the bicep (about three-eighths of an inch). In 
the males? weight gain group for observation period 2 (spring semester), the 
measurements with the most increase were the chest (about one inch), the hips (nearly 
one-third of an inch), and the waist (about one-fourth of an inch). In the males? weight 
gain group for observation period 3 (academic year), the measurements with the most 
increase were the chest (nearly seven-eighths of an inch), the waist (nearly two-thirds of 
an inch), the bicep (about one-half of an inch), the hips (two-fifths of an inch), and the 
thighs (nearly two-fifths of an inch). There appeared to be common ?measurement-area? 
increases for the waist in observation periods 1, 2, and 3. There appeared to be common 
?measurement-area? increases for the chest, hips, and waist in observation periods 2 and 
3. There appeared to be common ?measurement-area? increases for the thighs and waist 
in observation periods 1 and 3. 
 When comparing the males? weight loss/no change groups across the three 
observation periods, patterns were found. In the males? weight loss/no change group for 
observation period 1 (fall semester), the measurements with the most decrease were the 
thigh (about three-fourths of an inch) and the waist (about one-sixth of an inch). In the 
 106
males? weight loss/no change group for observation period 2 (spring semester), the 
measurement with the most amount of decrease was the thigh (about two-fifths of an 
inch). In the weight loss/no change group for observation period 3 (academic year), the 
measurements with the most amount of decrease were the thigh (about one-half of an 
inch) and the waist (about one-half of an inch). There appeared to be common 
?measurement-area? decreases for the thighs in observation periods 1, 2, and 3. There 
appeared to be common ?measurement-area? decreases for the waist and thighs in 
observation periods 1 and 3.  
There seemed to be some patterns of measurement increase in the males? weight 
loss/no change groups. In the males? weight loss/no change group for observation period 
1 (fall semester), the measurements with increased amounts were the chest (about one-
half of an inch), the bicep (about one-fourth of an inch), and the hips (about one-fifth of 
an inch). In the males? weight loss/no change group for observation period 2 (spring 
semester), the measurement with an increase was the bicep. In the males? weight loss/no 
change group for observation period 3 (academic year), the measurement with an 
increase was the chest (four-fifths of an inch). The common ?measurement-area? 
increases for the bicep measurement were found in observation periods 1 and 2. The 
common ?measurement-area? increases for the chest measurement were found in 
observation periods 1 and 3. These increases in measurements for the males? weight 
loss/no change groups could indicate that these males participate in physical activity that 
includes some combination of weight and strength training. 
 
 
 107
Research Question 3: Does the perception of body satisfaction related to weight gain or 
weight loss, change over the three observations? 
To answer this research question, body image was measured using the BASS 
subscale of the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ). The 
BASS is unique in that it approaches the evaluation of body image as ?dissatisfaction-
satisfaction with body areas and attributes? (Cash, 2000, p.1). Therefore, body image was 
observed through the perception of body satisfaction/dissatisfaction for each male and 
female subject using a 5-point Likert-type scale. A table in Microsoft Excel was created 
to present the score for each subject based on the nine questions of the BASS scale (see 
body satisfaction section in Appendix C). Adding the nine ratings and dividing by nine 
produced composite mean scores. The mean BASS score for each subject for the three 
observation periods allowed examination of female and male subjects? body 
satisfaction/dissatisfaction. ?High composite scorers are generally content with most 
areas of their body. Low scorers are unhappy with the size or appearance of several 
areas? (Cash, 2000, p.3). Body satisfaction/dissatisfaction factors were examined for 
female and male subjects to determine if there were differences between those that gained 
weight, lost weight, or had no change in weight.  
Due to a variation in the returning subjects for spring semester, only the 29 
subjects were used in the data collection for the BASS scale and their weight change 
analysis for all observation periods. Thus, 21 females and 8 males were used in the data 
collection for more reliable results. The three observation periods are best observed with 
the same subjects analyzed throughout the entire academic year. 
 
 108
 
Table 29.  
 
BASS and ?weight gain? group for female and male subjects at the beginning of fall and 
end of fall semester (observation period 1) 
Sex/Time BASS?  
 
Female (n=15) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Fall 
 
Fall Average 
 
 
 
3.42 + 0.48*
 
3.29 + 0.43 
 
3.36 + 0.45 
 
Male (n=6) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Fall 
 
Fall Average 
 
 
 
3.35 + 0.39*
 
3.30 + 0.42 
 
3.32 + 0.40 
 
All Subjects (n=21) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Fall 
 
Fall Average 
 
 
 
 
3.40 + 0.45*
 
3.29 + 0.41 
 
3.35 + 0.43 
Note. Mean + SD 87 + 14 days between measurements 
 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
 
*Statistically significantly (p < 0.05) greater than end of fall values 
 
 
 For observation period 1 (see Table 29) of the females? weight gain group (n=15), 
body areas satisfaction significantly decreased from the beginning of fall semester to the 
end of fall semester. The males? weight gain group (n=6) showed a significant decrease 
 109
in body areas satisfaction from the beginning of fall semester to the end of fall semester 
as well. It was less of a decrease than the females? weight gain group. Overall, the 
females? weight gain group was slightly more content with their body areas satisfaction 
than the males? weight gain group. On the 5-point scale, they each averaged between 3 
and 4 (3 = neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and 4 = mostly satisfied). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 110
Table 30.  
 
BASS and ?weight loss/no change? group for female and male subjects at the beginning of 
fall and end of fall semester (observation period 1) 
Sex/Time BASS?  
 
Female (n=6) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Fall 
 
Fall Average 
 
 
 
3.61 + 0.53*
 
3.81 + 0.53 
 
3.71 + 0.52 
 
Male (n=2) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Fall 
 
Fall Average 
 
 
 
4.33 + 0.63 
 
4.33 + 0.47 
 
4.33 + 0.45 
 
All Subjects (n=8) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Fall 
 
Fall Average 
 
 
 
 
3.79 + 0.61*
 
3.94 + 0.54 
 
3.87 + 0.56 
Note. Mean + SD 87 + 14 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
*Statistically significantly (p < 0.05) less than end of fall values 
 
 For observation period 1 (see Table 30) of the females? weight loss/no change 
group (n=6), body areas satisfaction increased from the beginning of fall semester to the 
end of fall semester. The males? weight loss/no change group (n=2) had no change 
 111
between the two observations, yet when compared to the females? weight loss/no change 
group, they were more satisfied or happy with their body areas. On the 5-point scale, the 
weight loss/no change subjects for observation period 1 each averaged between 3 and 5 
(3 = neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 4 = mostly satisfied, and 5 = strongly satisfied). 
 When comparing the weight gain group to the weight loss/no change group, the 
females? weight loss/no change group in total (beginning of fall mean scores and end of 
fall mean scores combined average) was more satisfied with their body areas than the 
females? weight gain group (see Table 29 and Table 30). When comparing the males? 
weight loss/no change group in total for the fall semester to the males? weight gain group 
in total for fall semester, the weight loss/no change group was more satisfied with their 
body areas than the weight gain group. For all subjects in total (beginning of fall means 
and end of fall means combined average) for fall semester, the weight gain group (n=21) 
was less satisfied with their body areas than the weight loss/no change group (n=8).  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 112
Table 31.  
 
BASS and ?weight gain? group for female and male subjects at the end of fall and end of 
spring semester (observation period 2) 
Sex/Time BASS?  
 
Female (n=11) 
 
End of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
Spring Average 
 
 
 
3.34 + 0.54 
 
3.38 + 0.55 
 
3.36 + 0.54 
 
Male (n=6) 
 
End of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
Spring Average 
 
 
 
3.61 + 0.73 
 
3.76 + 0.53*
 
3.69 + 0.61 
 
All Subjects (n=17) 
 
End of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
Spring Average 
 
 
 
 
3.44 + 0.61 
 
3.52 + 0.56*
 
3.48 + 0.58 
Note. Mean + SD 141 + 6 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
*Statistically significantly (p < 0.05) greater than end of fall values 
 
For observation period 2 (see Table 31) of the females? weight gain group (n=11), 
body areas satisfaction negligibly increased from the end of fall semester to the end of 
spring semester. The males? weight gain group (n=6) significantly increased from the end 
 113
of fall semester to the end of spring semester. Overall, the females? weight gain group 
was less satisfied with their body areas satisfaction than the males? weight gain group. On 
the 5-point scale, they each averaged between 3 and 4 (3 = neither satisfied nor 
dissatisfied and 4 = mostly satisfied). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 114
Table 32.  
 
BASS and ?weight loss/no change? group for female and male subjects at the end of fall 
and end of spring semester (observation period 2) 
Sex/Time BASS?  
 
Female (n=10) 
 
End of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
Spring Average 
 
 
 
3.54 + 0.47 
 
3.74 + 0.72*
 
3.64 + 0.60 
 
Male (n=2) 
 
End of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
Spring Average 
 
 
 
3.39 + 0.08 
 
3.33 + 0.47 
 
3.36 + 0.28 
 
All Subjects (n=12) 
 
End of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
Spring Average 
 
 
 
 
3.52 + 0.43 
 
3.68 + 0.68*
 
3.60 + 0.56 
Note. Mean + SD 141 + 6 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
*Statistically significantly (p < 0.05) greater than end of fall values 
 
For observation period 2 (see Table 32) of the females? weight loss/no change 
group (n=10), body areas satisfaction significantly increased from the end of fall semester 
to the end of spring semester. The males? weight loss/no change group (n=2) was 
 115
negligibly less satisfied with their body areas by the end of spring semester. Overall, the 
females? weight loss/no change group was more satisfied with their body areas than the 
males? weight loss/no change group for the total spring semester. On the 5-point scale, 
the weight loss/no change subjects for observation period 2 each averaged between 3 and 
4 (3 = neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and 4 = mostly satisfied). 
 When comparing the females? weight gain group (n=11) to the females? weight 
loss/no change group (n=10) for the total spring semester (end of fall means and end of 
spring means combined average), the females? weight loss/no change group was overall 
more content or happy with their body areas than the females? weight gain group (see 
Table 31 and Table 32). When comparing the males? weight gain group (n=6) to the 
males? weight loss/no change group (n=2) for the total spring semester, the males? weight 
gain group was more content or happy with their body areas than the males? weight 
loss/no change group. For all subjects in total for spring semester, the weight gain group 
(n=17) was less satisfied with their body areas than the weight loss/no change group 
(n=12). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 116
Table 33. 
BASS and ?weight gain? group for female and male subjects at the beginning of fall and 
end of spring semester (observation period 3) 
Sex/Time BASS?  
 
Female (n=15) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
Academic Year Average 
 
 
 
3.41 + 0.52 
 
3.39 + 0.52 
 
3.40 + 0.51 
 
Male (n=7) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
Academic Year Average 
 
 
 
3.43 + 0.41 
 
3.52 + 0.40*
 
3.48 + 0.40 
 
All Subjects (n=22) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
Academic Year Average 
 
 
 
 
3.41 + 0.48 
 
3.43 + 0.48 
 
3.42 + 0.47 
 
Note. Mean + SD 229 + 14 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
*Statistically significantly (p < 0.05) greater than beginning of fall values 
 
 For observation period 3 (see Table 33) of the females? weight gain group (n=15), 
body areas satisfaction negligibly decreased from the beginning of fall to the end of 
spring semester. Of the males? weight gain group (n=7), body areas satisfaction 
 117
significantly increased from the beginning of fall to the end of spring semester. Overall, 
the females? weight gain group was less satisfied with their body areas satisfaction than 
the males? weight gain group. On the 5-point scale, they each averaged between 3 and 4 
(3 = neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and 4 = mostly satisfied). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 118
Table 34. 
BASS and ?weight loss/no change? group for female and male subjects at the beginning of 
fall and end of spring semester (observation period 3) 
Sex/Time BASS?  
 
Female (n=6) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
Academic Year Average 
 
 
 
3.65 + 0.40 
 
3.96 + 0.81*
 
3.81 + 0.63 
 
Male (n=1) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
Academic Year Average 
 
 
 
4.78 + 0.00 
 
4.56 + 0.00 
 
4.67 + 0.16 
 
All Subjects (n=7) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
Academic Year Average 
 
 
 
 
3.81 + 0.56 
 
4.05 + 0.77*
 
3.93 + 0.66 
Note. Mean + SD 229 + 14 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
*Statistically significantly (p < 0.05) greater than beginning of fall values 
  
 For observation period 3 (see Table 34) of the females? weight loss/no change 
group (n=6), body areas satisfaction significantly increased from the beginning of fall to 
the end of spring semester. Of the males? weight loss/no change group (n=1), body areas 
 119
satisfaction decreased from the beginning of fall to the end of spring semester. Overall, 
the females? weight loss/no change group was less satisfied with their body areas 
satisfaction than the males? weight loss/no change group. The higher mean scores of the 
males? weight loss/no change group could be due to only one male subject for the group 
compared to the six female subjects and their mean scores. A greater sample size or equal 
sample size for the males? weight loss/no change group could produce a better 
comparison. On the 5-point scale, the weight loss/no change subjects for observation 
period 3 each averaged between 3 and 5 (3 = neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 4 = mostly 
satisfied, and 5 = strongly satisfied). 
 When comparing the weight gain group to the weight loss/no change group, the 
females? weight loss/no change group in total (beginning of fall means and end of spring 
means combined average) was more satisfied with their body areas than the females? 
weight gain group (see Table 33 and Table 34). When comparing the males? weight 
loss/no change group in total for observation period 3, the weight loss/no change group 
was more satisfied with their body areas than the weight gain group. For all subjects in 
total (beginning of fall means and end of spring means combined average) for 
observation period 3, the weight gain group (n=22) was less satisfied with their body 
areas than the weight loss/no change group (n=7). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 120
Table 35.  
 
Mean Averages of the BASS and ?weight gain? group for female and male subjects for the 
entire academic year (observation period 1, 2, and 3 combined average) 
Sex/Time BASS?  
 
Female (n=15) 
 
Average 
 
 
 
3.37 + 0.48 
 
Male (n=7) 
 
Average 
 
 
 
3.45 + 0.41 
 
All Subjects (n=22) 
 
Average 
 
 
 
 
3.39 + 0.46 
Note. ?Data are presented as mean + SD 
 
 
Table 36.  
 
Mean Averages of the BASS and ?weight loss/no change? group for female and male 
subjects for the entire academic year (observation period 1, 2, and 3 combined average) 
Sex/Time BASS?  
 
Female (n=6) 
 
Average 
 
 
 
3.80 + 0.58 
 
Male (n=1) 
 
Average 
 
 
 
4.67 + 0.11 
 
All Subjects (n=7) 
 
Average 
 
 
 
3.92 + 0.62 
Note. ?Data are presented as mean + SD 
 121
The females? weight gain group?s combined average (n=15) was less satisfied 
with their body areas than the males? weight gain group?s (n=7) for the entire academic 
year (see Table 35). The one male with weight loss/no change was more strongly 
satisfied with his body areas when compared to the females? weight loss/no change group 
(n=6) (see Table 36). When comparing the females? weight gain group?s combined 
average (n=15) for the entire academic year to the females? weight loss/no change 
group?s (n=6), the females? weight loss/no change group was more content with their 
body areas than the females? weight gain group (see Table 35 and 36). When comparing 
the males? weight gain group?s combined average (n=7) for the entire academic year to 
the one male with weight loss/no change, the latter was more satisfied with his body 
areas. For all subjects (observation period 1, 2, and 3 combined means) for the entire 
academic year, the weight loss/no change group (n=7) was overall more satisfied with 
their body areas than the weight gain group (n=22). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 122
Table 37. 
  
Mean Averages of the BASS and ?all weight? groups combined for female and male 
subjects for the entire academic year (observation period 1, 2, and 3 combined average) 
Sex/Time BASS?  
 
Female (n=21) 
 
Average 
 
 
 
3.49 + 0.55 
 
Male (n=8) 
 
Average 
 
 
 
3.60 + 0.56 
 
All Subjects (n=29) 
 
Average 
 
 
 
 
3.52 + 0.55 
Note. ?Data are presented as mean + SD 
 
When combining both the weight gain and weight loss/no change groups in total 
(observation period 1, 2, and 3 combined means) for the entire academic year, the 
females (n=21) were overall less satisfied with their body areas than the males (n=8). All 
subjects combined (n=29) were fairly satisfied with their body areas (see Table 37). On 
the 5-point scale, they each averaged between 3 and 4 (3 = neither satisfied nor 
dissatisfied and 4 = mostly satisfied). 
 
 
 
 
 
 123
Summary 
Table 38. 
Means of the BASS and all ?weight gain? groups for female and male subjects 
(observation periods: 1, 2, and 3) 
Sex/Time BASS?  Sex/Time BASS? Sex/Time BASS? 
 
Female (n=15) 
 
Beginning Fall 
 
End Fall 
 
Fall Average 
 
 
 
3.42 
 
3.29* 
 
3.36 
 
Female (n=11) 
 
End Fall
End Spring
Spring Average
 
 
 
3.34 
 
3.38 
 
3.36 
 
Female (n=15) 
 
Beginning Fall 
 
End Spring 
 
Academic Year Average 
 
 
 
3.41 
 
3.39 
 
3.40 
 
Male (n=6) 
 
Beginning Fall 
 
End Fall 
 
Fall Average 
 
 
 
3.35 
 
3.30* 
 
3.32 
 
Male (n=6) 
 
End Fall
End Spring
Spring Average
 
 
 
3.61 
 
3.76 
 
3.69 
 
Male (n=7) 
 
Beginning Fall 
 
End Spring 
 
Academic Year Average 
 
 
 
3.43 
 
3.52 
 
3.48 
 
 
All Subjects  
 
(n=21) 
 
Beginning Fall 
 
End Fall 
 
Fall Average 
 
 
 
 
 
3.40 
 
3.29* 
 
3.35 
 
All Subjects  
 
(n=17) 
 
End Fall
End Spring
Spring Average
 
 
 
 
 
3.44 
 
3.52 
 
3.48 
 
All Subjects  
 
(n=22) 
 
Beginning Fall 
 
End Spring 
 
Academic Year Average 
 
 
 
 
 
3.41 
 
3.43 
 
3.42 
  
Note. ?Data are presented as mean 
*Statistically significantly (p < 0.05) less than beginning values 
 
 
 124
 On the 5-point scale, all weight gain subjects averaged between 3 and 4 (3 = 
neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and 4 = mostly satisfied) (see Table 38). In the females? 
weight gain group for observation period 1, the females? body satisfaction significantly 
decreased by the end of fall semester. In the females? weight gain group for observation 
period 2 (spring semester), the females? body satisfaction had no significant changes, but 
they were somewhat satisfied with their bodies. In the females? weight gain group for 
observation period 3 (academic year), the females? body satisfaction had no significant 
changes, but they were somewhat satisfied with their bodies. In the males? weight gain 
group for observation period 1 (fall semester), the males? body satisfaction significantly 
decreased. In the males? weight gain group for observation period 2 (spring semester), the 
males? body satisfaction significantly increased. In the males? weight gain group for 
observation period 3 (academic year), the males? body satisfaction significantly 
increased. All male weight gain subjects were somewhat satisfied with their bodies. The 
males from observation period 2 seemed to be more satisfied than those in observation 
period 1 and 3. For all weight gain subjects in observation period 1 (fall semester), body 
satisfaction significantly decreased. For all weight gain subjects in observation period 2 
(spring semester), body satisfaction significantly increased. For all weight gain subjects 
in observation period 3, no significant change occurred, but all weight gain subjects were 
somewhat satisfied with their bodies. 
 
 
 
 
 125
Table 39. 
Means of the BASS and all ?weight loss/no change? groups for female and male subjects 
(observation periods: 1, 2, and 3) 
Sex/Time BASS?  Sex/Time BASS? Sex/Time BASS? 
 
Female (n=6) 
 
Beginning Fall 
 
End Fall 
 
Fall Average 
 
 
 
3.61 
 
3.81* 
 
3.71 
 
Female (n=10) 
 
End Fall
End Spring
Spring Average
 
 
 
3.54 
 
3.74* 
 
3.64 
 
Female (n=6) 
 
Beginning Fall 
 
End Spring 
 
Academic Year Average 
 
 
 
3.65 
 
3.96* 
 
3.81 
 
Male (n=2) 
 
Beginning Fall 
 
End Fall 
 
Fall Average 
 
 
 
4.33 
 
4.33 
 
4.33 
 
Male (n=2) 
 
End Fall
End Spring
Spring Average
 
 
 
3.39 
 
3.33 
 
3.36 
 
Male (n=1) 
 
Beginning Fall 
 
End Spring 
 
Academic Year Average 
 
 
 
4.78 
 
4.56 
 
4.67 
 
All Subjects  
 
(n=8) 
 
Beginning Fall 
 
End Fall 
 
Fall Average 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.79 
 
3.94* 
 
3.87 
 
All Subjects  
 
(n=12) 
 
End Fall
End Spring
Spring Average
 
 
 
 
 
3.52 
 
3.68* 
 
3.60 
 
All Subjects  
 
(n=7) 
 
Beginning Fall 
 
End Spring 
 
Academic Year Average 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.81 
 
4.05* 
 
3.93 
Note. ?Data are presented as mean  
*Statistically significantly (p < 0.05) greater than beginning of fall values 
 
 On the 5-point scale, all weight loss/no change subjects averaged between 3 and 5 
(3 = neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 4 = mostly satisfied, and 5 = strongly satisfied) (see 
Table 39). In the females? weight loss/no change group for observation period 1 (fall 
 126
semester), body satisfaction significantly increased. In the females? weight loss/no 
change group for observation period 2 (spring semester), body satisfaction significantly 
increased. In the females? weight loss/no change group for observation period 3 
(academic year), body satisfaction significantly increased. It appeared that body 
satisfaction of observation period 3 was higher than body satisfaction of observation 
periods 1 and 2 for the females? weight loss/no change groups. In the males? weight 
loss/no change group for observation period 1 (fall semester), body satisfaction had no 
significant change, but the two subjects were mostly satisfied with their bodies for fall 
semester. In the males? weight loss/no change group for observation period 2 (spring 
semester), body satisfaction significantly decreased. The subjects were somewhat 
satisfied with their bodies for spring semester. In the males? weight loss/no change group 
for observation period 3 (academic year), body satisfaction significantly decreased. 
Subjects were mostly satisfied with their bodies for the academic year. It appeared that 
body satisfaction of observation period 3 was higher than body satisfaction of observation 
periods 1 and 2. For all weight loss/no change subjects in observation period 1, body 
satisfaction significantly increased. The subjects were somewhat satisfied with their 
bodies. For all weight loss/no change subjects in observation period 2, body satisfaction 
significantly increased. The subjects were somewhat satisfied with their bodies. For all 
weight loss/no change subjects in observation period 3, body satisfaction significantly 
increased. The subjects were mostly satisfied with their bodies. 
 
 
 127
Research Question 4: Is there a change in cognitive appearance investment, and if so, is 
it related to weight gain or weight loss over the three observations? 
 To answer this research question, cognitive appearance investment was observed 
by using the ASI-R scale. Two subscales divide the ASI-R scale: Self-Evaluative 
Salience and Motivational Salience (see body image section in Appendix C). The Self-
Evaluative Salience subscale is based on the mean score of 12-items (2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 
14, 15, 16, 19, and 20), and the Motivational Salience subscale is based on the mean 
score of 8-items (1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 17, and 18). Six of the total 20 items are reverse 
scored: 1, 4, 5, 9, 11, and 12 (i.e., 1 = 5, 2 = 4, 4 = 2, 5 = 1). The composite ASI-R score 
is based on the mean of the 20 items. A table in Microsoft Excel was created presenting 
the overall means and standard deviations of the ASI-R and its two subscales as a 
function of male and female subjects. The greater the mean, the more ?self-evaluatively? 
and ?motivationally? invested the subjects are.  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 128
Table 40. 
ASI-R and ?weight gain? group for female and male subjects at the beginning of fall and 
end of fall semester (observation period 1) 
 
 
Sex/Time 
ASI-R? 
 
Composite  
ASI-R? 
 
Self-Evaluative
ASI-R?  
 
Motivational 
 
Female (n=15) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Fall 
 
Fall Average 
 
 
 
3.67 + 0.53 
 
3.59 + 0.49*
 
3.63 + 0.51 
 
 
 
3.50 + 0.54 
 
3.36 + 0.52* 
 
3.43 + 0.53 
 
 
 
3.92 + 0.60 
 
3.93 + 0.52 
 
3.93 + 0.56 
 
Male (n=6) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Fall 
 
Fall Average 
 
 
 
3.13 + 0.83 
 
3.19 + 0.84 
 
3.16 + 0.80 
 
 
 
3.03 + 0.78 
 
2.99 + 0.88 
 
3.01 + 0.79 
 
 
 
3.27 + 0.92 
 
3.50 + 0.84 
 
3.39 + 0.85 
 
All Subjects (n=21) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Fall 
 
Fall Average 
 
 
 
 
3.51 + 0.66 
 
3.47 + 0.61 
 
3.49 + 0.63 
 
 
 
3.37 + 0.64 
 
3.25 + 0.64* 
 
3.31 + 0.63 
 
 
 
3.73 + 0.75 
 
3.81 + 0.64 
 
3.77 + 0.69 
Note. Mean + SD 87 + 14 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
*Statistically significantly (p < 0.05) less than beginning of fall values 
 
 
In observation period 1 (see Table 40), the females? weight gain group (n=15) was 
significantly less invested in their overall (composite ASI-R) appearance by the end of 
 129
fall semester than at the beginning of fall semester. Their self-evaluative scores fell 
significantly. Their motivational scores stayed nearly the same. The males? weight gain 
group (n=6) was significantly more invested in their overall appearance by the end of fall 
semester than at the beginning of fall semester. Their self-evaluative scores stayed nearly 
the same, and their motivational scores increased significantly by the end of fall semester. 
On the 5-point scale, they each averaged between 3 and 4 (3 = neither agree or disagree 
and 4 = mostly agree). Higher scores indicate stronger associations with evaluating and 
attending to one?s looks and appearance-maintaining behaviors. 
 When comparing the females? and males? weight gain groups for fall semester, 
the females were more invested in their overall appearance than the males. The females 
also had higher self-evaluative and motivational scores than the males. Overall, all weight 
gain subjects combined (n=21) were negligibly less invested in their overall appearance 
by the end of fall semester than at the beginning of fall semester. Their self-evaluative 
scores fell significantly. Their motivational scores increased significantly. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 130
Table 41.  
 
ASI-R and ?weight loss/no change? group for female and male subjects at the beginning 
of fall and end of fall semester (observation period 1) 
 
 
Sex/Time 
ASI-R? 
 
Composite  
ASI-R? 
 
Self-Evaluative
ASI-R?  
 
Motivational
 
Female (n=6) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Fall 
 
Fall Average 
 
 
 
3.08 + 0.43 
 
2.97 + 0.58*
 
3.02 + 0.49 
 
 
 
2.75 + 0.59 
 
2.56 + 0.63* 
 
2.65 + 0.59 
 
 
 
3.56 + 0.65 
 
3.58 + 0.62 
 
3.57 + 0.60 
 
Male (n=2) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Fall 
 
Fall Average 
 
 
 
3.05 + 0.14 
 
3.30 + 0.49 
 
3.18 + 0.33 
 
 
 
2.46 + 0.06 
 
2.75 + 0.24 
 
2.60 + 0.22 
 
 
 
3.94 + 0.27 
 
4.13 + 0.88 
 
4.03 + 0.54 
 
All Subjects (n=8) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Fall 
 
Fall Average 
 
 
 
 
3.07 + 0.37 
 
3.05 + 0.55 
 
3.06 + 0.45 
 
 
 
2.68 + 0.52 
 
2.60 + 0.55* 
 
2.64 + 0.52 
 
 
 
3.66 + 0.58 
 
3.72 + 0.67 
 
3.69 + 0.61 
Note. Mean + SD 87 + 14 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
*Statistically significantly (p < 0.05) less than beginning of fall values 
 
 In observation period 1 (see Table 41), the females? weight loss/no change group 
(n=6) was significantly less invested in their overall appearance by the end of fall 
 131
semester than at the beginning of fall semester. Their self-evaluative scores fell 
significantly. Their motivational scores negligibly increased by the end of fall semester. 
The two males were more invested, but not significantly. Their self-evaluative and 
motivational scores significantly increased. On a 5-point scale, they each averaged 
between 2 and 5 (2 = mostly disagree, 3 = neither agree or disagree, 4 = mostly agree, 
and 5 = strongly agree). Higher scores indicate stronger associations with evaluating and 
attending to one?s looks and appearance-maintaining behaviors. 
 When comparing the females? and males? weight loss/no change groups for fall 
semester, the females? weight loss/no change group (n=6) was less invested in their 
overall appearance than the males? weight loss/no change group (n=2). The females? self-
evaluative scores were higher and their motivational scores were lower than the males? 
scores. Overall, all weight loss/no change subjects combined (n=8) were negligibly less 
invested in their overall appearance by the end of fall semester than at the beginning of 
fall semester. Their self-evaluative scores significantly fell. Their motivational scores 
significantly increased. 
 When comparing the females? weight gain group (n=15) for fall semester to the 
females? weight loss/no change group (n=6) for fall semester, the females? weight gain 
group was much more invested in their overall appearance than the females? weight 
loss/no change group. Also, the females? self-evaluative and motivational scores were 
higher in the weight gain group (see Table 40 and Table 41). When comparing the males? 
weight gain group (n=6) for fall semester to the males? weight loss/no change group 
(n=2) for fall semester, the males? weight gain and weight loss/no change groups had 
nearly the same investment in their overall appearance with 3.16 and 3.18 respectively. 
 132
The males? self-evaluative scores were higher in the weight gain group. Their 
motivational scores were lower than the males? weight loss/no change group. When 
comparing all weight gain subjects (n=21) and all weight loss subjects (n=8) for fall 
semester, the weight gain group was more invested in their overall appearance than the 
weight loss/no change group. Their self-evaluative and motivational scores were higher 
than the weight loss/no change group. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 133
Table 42. 
  
ASI-R and ?weight gain? group for female and male subjects at the end of fall and end of 
spring semester (observation period 2) 
 
 
Sex/Time 
ASI-R? 
 
Composite  
ASI-R? 
 
Self-Evaluative
ASI-R? 
 
Motivational 
 
Female (n=11) 
 
End of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
Spring Average 
 
 
 
3.36 + 0.42 
 
3.32 + 0.51 
 
3.34 + 0.45 
 
 
 
3.06 + 0.51 
 
3.08 + 0.73 
 
3.07 + 0.62 
 
 
 
3.81 + 0.47 
 
3.69 + 0.42* 
 
3.75 + 0.44 
 
Male (n=6) 
 
End of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
Spring Average 
 
 
 
3.32 + 0.84 
 
3.10 + 0.81*
 
3.21 + 0.79 
 
 
 
3.04 + 0.86 
 
2.86 + 0.68* 
 
2.95 + 0.75 
 
 
 
3.73 + 0.96 
 
3.46 + 1.11* 
 
3.59 + 1.00 
 
All Subjects (n=17) 
 
End of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
Spring Average 
 
 
 
 
3.34 + 0.57 
 
3.24 + 0.62*
 
3.29 + 0.59 
 
 
 
3.05 + 0.63 
 
3.00 + 0.70* 
 
3.03 + 0.66 
 
 
 
3.78 + 0.65 
 
3.61 + 0.71* 
 
3.69 + 0.68 
Note. Mean + SD 141 + 6 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
*Statistically significantly (p < 0.05) less than end of fall values 
 
In observation period 2 (see Table 42), the females? weight gain group (n=11) was 
significantly less invested in their overall (composite ASI-R) appearance by the end of 
 134
spring semester than at the end of fall semester. Their self-evaluative scores were nearly 
the same. Their motivational scores significantly decreased by the end of spring semester. 
The males? weight gain group (n=6) was significantly less invested in their overall 
appearance by the end of spring semester. Their self-evaluative and motivational scores 
significantly fell. On a 5-point scale, they each averaged between 2 and 4 (2 = mostly 
disagree, 3 = neither agree or disagree, and 4 = mostly agree). Higher scores indicate 
stronger associations with evaluating and attending to one?s looks and appearance-
maintaining behaviors. 
 When comparing the females? and males? weight gain groups for spring semester, 
the females? weight gain group (n=11) was more invested in their overall appearance than 
the males? weight gain group (n=6). The females? self-evaluative and motivational scores 
were higher than the males? scores. Overall, all weight gain subjects combined (n=17) 
were significantly less invested in their overall appearance by the end of spring semester 
than at the end of fall semester. Their self-evaluative and motivational scores 
significantly decreased by the end of spring semester. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 135
Table 43.  
 
ASI-R and ?weight loss/no change? group for female and male subjects at the end of fall 
and end of spring semester (observation 2) 
 
 
Sex/Time 
ASI-R? 
 
Composite  
ASI-R? 
 
Self-Evaluative
ASI-R? 
 
Motivational 
 
Female (n=10) 
 
End of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
Spring Average 
 
 
 
3.47 + 0.74 
 
3.27 + 0.71*
 
3.37 + 0.71 
 
 
 
3.20 + 0.81 
 
3.03 + 0.72* 
 
3.11 + 0.75 
 
 
 
3.86 + 0.68 
 
3.63 + 0.73* 
 
3.74 + 0.69 
 
Male (n=2) 
 
End of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
Spring Average 
 
 
 
2.93 + 0.18 
 
2.90 + 0.07 
 
2.91 + 0.11 
 
 
 
2.58 + 0.00 
 
2.63 + 0.06 
 
2.60 + 0.04 
 
 
 
3.44 + 0.44 
 
3.31 + 0.09* 
 
3.38 + 0.27 
 
All Subjects (n=12) 
 
End of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
Spring Average 
 
 
 
 
3.38 + 0.70 
 
3.20 + 0.65*
 
3.29 + 0.67 
 
 
 
3.10 + 0.77 
 
2.96 + 0.67* 
 
3.03 + 0.71 
 
 
 
3.79 + 0.65 
 
3.57 + 0.67* 
 
3.68 + 0.65 
Note. Mean + SD 141 + 6 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
*Statistically significantly (p < 0.05) less than end of fall values 
 
 In observation period 2 (see Table 43), the females? weight loss/no change group 
(n=10) was significantly less invested in their overall appearance by the end of spring 
 136
semester than at the end of fall semester. Their self-evaluative and motivational scores 
fell significantly. The males? weight loss/no change group (n=2) had nearly the same 
amount of investment in their overall appearance by the end of spring semester than at 
the end of fall semester. Their self-evaluative scores significantly increased and their 
motivational scores significantly decreased by the end of spring semester. On a 5-point 
scale, they each averaged between 2 and 4 (2 = mostly disagree, 3 = neither agree or 
disagree, and 4 = mostly agree). Higher scores indicate stronger associations with 
evaluating and attending to one?s looks and appearance-maintaining behaviors. 
 When comparing the females? and males? weight loss/no change groups for spring 
semester, the females? weight loss/no change group (n=10) was more invested in their 
overall appearance than the males? weight loss/no change group (n=2). The females had 
higher self-evaluative and motivational scores than the males. Overall, all weight loss/no 
change subjects combined (n=12) were significantly less invested in their overall 
appearance by the end of spring semester that at the end of fall semester. Also, their self-
evaluative and motivational scores were significantly lower by the end of spring 
semester. 
 When comparing the females? weight gain group (n=11) for spring semester to the 
females? weight loss/no change group (n=10) for spring semester, the females? weight 
gain and weight loss/no change groups had nearly the same amount of investment in their 
overall appearance by the end of spring semester (see Table 42 and Table 43). The 
females? self-evaluative and motivational scores were nearly the same in both weight 
groups by the end of spring semester. Both weight groups had higher motivational scores 
than composite scores and self-evaluative scores. When comparing the males? weight 
 137
gain group (n=6) for spring semester to the males? weight loss/no change group (n=2) for 
spring semester, the males? weight gain group was more invested in their overall 
appearance. Also, the males? self-evaluative and motivational scores were higher in the 
weight gain group.  When comparing all weight gain subjects (n=17) and all weight 
loss/no change subjects (n=12) for the spring semester, the weight gain and weight 
loss/no change groups had nearly the same amount of investment in their overall 
(composite) appearance by the end of spring semester. Their self-evaluative and 
motivational scores were nearly the same as well. Both weight groups had higher 
motivational scores than composite scores and self-evaluative scores.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 138
Table 44. 
ASI-R and ?weight gain? group for female and male subjects at the beginning of fall and 
end of spring semester (observation period 3) 
 
 
Sex/Time 
ASI-R? 
 
Composite  
ASI-R? 
 
Self-Evaluative
ASI-R? 
 
Motivational 
 
Female (n=15) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
Academic Year Average 
 
 
 
3.63 + 0.55 
 
3.49 + 0.55*
 
3.56 + 0.54 
 
 
 
3.47 + 0.59 
 
3.27 + 0.71* 
 
3.37 + 0.65 
 
 
 
3.88 + 0.60 
 
3.83 + 0.46* 
 
3.85 + 0.53 
 
Male (n=7) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
Academic Year Average 
 
 
 
3.10 + 0.76 
 
2.96 + 0.70*
 
3.03 + 0.71 
 
 
 
2.94 + 0.75 
 
2.77 + 0.63* 
 
2.86 + 0.67 
 
 
 
3.34 + 0.86 
 
3.25 + 0.87* 
 
3.29 + 0.83 
 
All Subjects (n=22) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
Academic Year Average 
 
 
 
 
3.46 + 0.66 
 
3.33 + 0.63*
 
3.39 + 0.64 
 
 
 
3.30 + 0.67 
 
3.11 + 0.71* 
 
3.21 + 0.69 
 
 
 
 
3.70 + 0.72 
 
3.64 + 0.66* 
 
3.67 + 0.68 
Note. Mean + SD 229 + 14 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
*Statistically significantly (p < 0.05) less than beginning of fall values 
 
 In observation period 3 (see Table 44), the females? weight gain group (n=15) was 
significantly less invested in their overall appearance by the end of spring semester than 
 139
at the beginning of fall semester. Their self-evaluative and motivational scores fell 
significantly. The males? weight gain group (n=7) was significantly less invested in their 
overall appearance by the end of spring semester than at the beginning of fall semester. 
Their self-evaluative and motivational scores fell significantly. On the 5-point scale, they 
each averaged between 2 and 4. Higher scores indicate stronger associations with 
evaluating and attending to one?s looks and appearance-maintaining behaviors. 
 When comparing the females? and males? weight gain groups for observation 
period 3, the females were more invested in their overall appearance than the males. The 
females also had higher self-evaluative and motivational scores than the males. Overall, 
all weight gain subjects combined (n=22) were significantly less invested in their overall 
appearance by the end of spring semester than at the beginning of fall semester. Also, 
their self-evaluative and motivational scores significantly fell. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 140
Table 45. 
ASI-R and ?weight loss/no change? group for female and male subjects at the beginning 
of fall and end of spring semester (observation period 3) 
 
 
Sex/Time 
ASI-R? 
 
Composite  
ASI-R? 
 
Self-Evaluative
ASI-R? 
 
Motivational 
 
Female (n=6) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
Academic Year Average 
 
 
 
3.17 + 0.49 
 
2.80 + 0.42*
 
2.98 + 0.48 
 
 
 
2.83 + 0.58 
 
2.50 + 0.32* 
 
2.67 + 0.48 
 
 
 
3.67 + 0.71 
 
3.25 + 0.65* 
 
3.46 + 0.69 
 
Male (n=1) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
Academic Year Average 
 
 
 
3.15 + 0.00 
 
3.65 + 0.00 
 
3.40 + 0.35 
 
 
 
2.50 + 0.00 
 
3.00 + 0.00 
 
2.75 + 0.35 
 
 
 
4.13 + 0.00 
 
4.63 + 0.00 
 
4.38 + 0.35 
 
All Subjects (n=7) 
 
Beginning of Fall 
 
End of Spring 
 
Academic Year Average 
 
 
 
 
3.16 + 0.45 
 
2.92 + 0.50*
 
3.04 + 0.47 
 
 
 
2.79 + 0.55 
 
2.57 + 0.35* 
 
2.68 + 0.46 
 
 
 
3.73 + 0.67 
 
3.45 + 0.80* 
 
3.59 + 0.72 
Note. Mean + SD 229 + 14 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
*Statistically significantly (p < 0.05) less than beginning of fall values 
 
In observation period 3 (see Table 45), the females? weight loss/no change group 
(n=6) was significantly less invested in their overall appearance by the end of spring 
 141
semester than at the beginning of fall semester. Their self-evaluative and motivational 
scores fell significantly. The one male was significantly more invested in his overall 
appearance at the end of spring semester than at the beginning of fall semester. His self-
evaluative and motivational scores significantly increased. On the 5-point scale, they 
each averaged between 2 and 5. Higher scores indicate stronger associations with 
evaluating and attending to one?s looks and appearance-maintaining behaviors. 
 When comparing the females? and males? weight loss/no change groups for 
observation period 3, the females were less invested in their overall appearance than the 
male of the weight loss/no change group. Their self-evaluative and motivational scores 
were also lower than the male. Overall, all weight loss/no change subjects combined 
(n=7) were significantly less invested in their overall appearance by the end of spring 
semester than at the beginning of fall semester. Their self-evaluative and motivational 
scores fell significantly. 
 When comparing the females? weight gain group (n=15) in observation period 3 
to the females? weight loss/no change group (n=6), the females? weight gain group was 
more invested in their overall appearance than the females? weight loss/no change group 
(see Table 44 and Table 45). Their self-evaluative and motivational scores were higher 
than the females? weight loss/no change group scores. When comparing the males? 
weight gain group (n=7) in observation period 3 to the male with weight loss/no change, 
the male with weight loss/no change was more invested in his appearance than the weight 
gain group. His self-evaluative score was lower than the weight gain group?s scores and 
his motivational score was higher than the weight gain group?s scores. When comparing 
all weight gain subjects (n=22) and all weight loss/no change subjects (n=7) for 
 142
observation period 3, the weight gain group was more invested in their overall 
appearance than the weight loss/no change group. Their self-evaluative and motivational 
scores were higher than the weight loss/no change group?s scores.  
 
Table 46.  
 
Mean Averages of the ASI-R and ?weight gain? group for female and male subjects for 
the entire academic year (observation period 1, 2, and 3 combined average) 
 
 
Sex/Time 
ASI-R? 
 
Composite 
ASI-R? 
 
Self-Evaluative
ASI-R? 
 
Motivational
 
Female (n=15) 
 
Average 
 
 
 
3.56 + 0.53
 
 
 
3.35 + 0.62 
 
 
 
3.88 + 0.52 
 
Male (n=7) 
 
Average 
 
 
 
3.07 + 0.71
 
 
 
2.88 + 0.70 
 
 
 
3.36 + 0.80 
 
All Subjects (n=22) 
 
Average 
 
 
 
 
3.41 + 0.63
 
 
 
3.20 + 0.68 
 
 
 
3.72 + 0.66 
Note. Mean + SD 229 + 14 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 143
Table 47.  
 
Mean Averages of the ASI-R and ?weight loss? group for female and male subjects for the 
entire academic year (observation period 1, 2, and 3 combined average) 
 
 
Sex/Time 
ASI-R? 
 
Composite 
ASI-R? 
 
Self-Evaluative
ASI-R? 
 
Motivational
 
Female (n=6) 
 
Average 
 
 
 
2.99 + 0.48
 
 
 
2.66 + 0.50 
 
 
 
3.49 + 0.64 
 
Male (n=1) 
 
Average 
 
 
 
3.48 + 0.29
 
 
 
2.81 + 0.27 
 
 
 
4.50 + 0.33 
 
All Subjects (n=7) 
 
Average 
 
 
 
 
3.06 + 0.49
 
 
 
2.68 + 0.47 
 
 
 
3.64 + 0.70 
Note. Mean + SD 229 + 14 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
 
 The females? weight gain group?s combined average (n=15) for the entire 
academic year had higher motivational scores than self-evaluative scores and composite 
scores (see Table 46). The males? weight gain group?s combined average (n=7) for the 
entire academic year had higher motivational scores than self-evaluative scores and 
composite scores. When comparing the females? and males? weight gain groups for the 
entire academic year, the females? weight gain group?s combined average (n=15) was 
higher than the males? weight gain group?s combined average (n=7) in composite scores. 
Their self-evaluative and motivational scores were also higher.  
 144
The females? weight loss/no change group?s combined average (n=6) for the 
entire academic year had higher motivational scores than self-evaluative and composite 
scores (see Table 47). The one male with weight loss/no change for the entire academic 
year had higher motivational scores than self-evaluative and composite scores. When 
comparing the females? and the male with weight loss/no change for the academic year, 
the females? weight loss/no change group?s combined average (n=6) was lower in 
composite scores. Their self-evaluative and motivational scores were also lower. Overall, 
all weight loss/no change subjects? combined average (n=7) was higher in motivational 
scores than self-evaluative and composite scores. 
 When comparing the females? weight gain group?s combined average (n=15) for 
the entire academic year to the females? weight loss/no change group?s combined average 
(n=6) for the academic year, the females? weight gain group was more invested in their 
overall appearance (see Table 46 and Table 47). Their self-evaluative and motivational 
scores were also higher. When comparing the males? weight gain group?s combined 
average (n=7) for the entire academic year to the male with weight loss/no change for the 
entire academic year, the latter was more invested in overall appearance. The male with 
weight loss/no change also had a higher self-evaluative and motivational score. When 
comparing all weight gain subjects (n=22) and all weight loss subjects (n=7) for the 
entire academic year, the weight gain subjects were more invested in their overall 
appearance. Their self-evaluative and motivational scores were also higher. 
 
 
 
 
 
 145
Table 48. 
 
 Mean Averages of the ASI-R and ?all weight? groups for female and male subjects for the 
entire academic year (observation period 1, 2, and 3 combined average) 
 
 
Sex/Time 
ASI-R? 
 
Composite 
ASI-R? 
 
Self-Evaluative
ASI-R? 
 
Motivational
 
Female (n=21) 
 
Average 
 
 
 
3.40 + 0.58
 
 
 
3.15 + 0.67 
 
 
 
3.77 + 0.58 
 
Male (n=8) 
 
Average 
 
 
 
3.13 + 0.68
 
 
 
2.87 + 0.66 
 
 
 
3.51 + 0.84 
 
All Subjects (n=29) 
 
Average 
 
 
 
3.32 + 0.62
 
 
 
3.08 + 0.67 
 
 
 
3.70 + 0.67 
Note. Mean + SD 229 + 14 days between measurements 
?Data are presented as mean + SD 
 
 When comparing all female subjects in both weight groups (n=21) to all male 
subjects in both weight groups (n=8) for the entire academic year, the females were more 
invested in their overall appearance. Their self-evaluative and motivational scores were 
also higher (see Table 48). Overall, all subjects (n=29) had higher motivational scores 
than self-evaluative and composite scores. 
 
 
 
 
 
 146
Summary 
Table 49. 
Means of the ASI-R and all ?weight gain? groups for female subjects (observation 
periods: 1, 2, and 3) 
 Observation Period 1 
Female (n=15) 
Observation Period 2 
Female (n=11) 
Observation Period 3 
Female (n=15 ) 
 
Composite 
 
Begin Fall 
End Fall 
Fall Average 
3.67 
3.59* 
3.63 
End Fall 
End Spring 
Spr Average 
3.36 
3.32 
3.34 
Begin Fall 
End Spring 
Acad Average 
3.63 
3.49* 
3.56 
 
Self-eval 
Begin Fall 
End Fall 
Fall Average 
3.50 
3.36* 
3.43 
End Fall 
End Spring 
Spr Average 
3.06 
3.08 
3.07 
Begin Fall 
End Spring 
Acad Average 
3.47 
3.27* 
3.37 
 
Motivational 
Begin Fall 
End Fall 
Fall Average 
3.92 
3.93 
3.93 
End Fall 
End Spring 
Spr Average 
3.81 
3.69* 
3.75 
Begin Fall 
End fall 
Acad Average 
3.88 
3.83* 
3.85 
*Statistically significantly (p < 0.05) less than beginning values 
 
 In the females? weight gain group for observation period 1, overall investment in 
appearance significantly decreased (see Table 49). Their self-evaluative scores were 
significantly lower than at the beginning of the fall. In the females? weight gain group for 
observation period 2, overall investment in appearance had no significant changes. The 
motivational scores significantly decreased. In the females? weight gain group for 
observation period 3, overall investment in appearance significantly decreased. Their 
 147
self-evaluative and motivational scores significantly decreased. Out of the three 
observation periods, the females? weight gain group for observation period 1 (fall 
semester) had the highest overall appearance-investment, self-evaluative, and 
motivational scores. 
 
Table 50. 
Means of the ASI-R and all ?weight gain? groups for male subjects (observation periods: 
1, 2, and 3) 
 Observation Period 1 
Male (n=6) 
Observation Period 2 
Male (n=6) 
Observation Period 3 
Male (n=7) 
 
Composite 
 
Begin Fall 
End Fall 
Fall Average 
3.13 
3.19 
3.16 
End Fall 
End Spring 
Spr Average 
3.32 
3.10* 
3.21 
Begin Fall 
End Spring 
Acad Average 
3.10 
2.96* 
3.03 
 
Self-eval 
Begin Fall 
End Fall 
Fall Average 
3.03 
2.99 
3.01 
End Fall 
End Spring 
Spr Average 
3.04 
2.86* 
2.95 
Begin Fall 
End Spring 
Acad Average 
2.94 
2.77* 
2.86 
 
Motivational 
Begin Fall 
End Fall 
Fall Average 
3.27 
3.50 
3.39 
End Fall 
End Spring 
Spr Average 
3.73 
3.46* 
3.59 
Begin Fall 
End fall 
Acad Average 
3.34 
3.25* 
3.29 
*Statistically significantly (p < 0.05) less than beginning values 
 
 In the males? weight gain group for observation period 1, overall investment in 
appearance had no significant changes (see Table 50). Their motivational scores 
 148
significantly increased. In the males? weight gain group for observation period 2, overall 
investment in appearance significantly decreased. Their self-evaluative and motivational 
scores significantly decreased. In the males? weight gain group for observation period 3, 
overall investment in appearance significantly decreased. Their self-evaluative and 
motivational scores significantly decreased. Out of the three observation periods, the 
males? weight gain group with the highest overall appearance-investment and 
motivational scores was observation period 2 (spring semester). The observation period 
with the highest self-evaluative scores was observation period 1 (fall semester).  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 149
Table 51. 
Means of the ASI-R and all ?weight loss/no change? groups for female subjects 
(observation periods: 1, 2, and 3) 
 Observation Period 1 
Female (n=6) 
Observation Period 2 
Female (n=10) 
Observation Period 3 
Female (n=6) 
 
Composite 
 
Begin Fall 
End Fall 
Fall Average 
3.08 
2.97* 
3.02 
End Fall 
End Spring 
Spr Average 
3.47 
3.27* 
3.37 
Begin Fall 
End Spring 
Acad Average 
3.17 
2.80* 
2.98 
 
Self-eval 
Begin Fall 
End Fall 
Fall Average 
2.75 
2.56* 
2.65 
End Fall 
End Spring 
Spr Average 
3.20 
3.03* 
3.11 
Begin Fall 
End Spring 
Acad Average 
2.83 
2.50* 
2.67 
 
Motivational 
Begin Fall 
End Fall 
Fall Average 
3.56 
3.58 
3.57 
End Fall 
End Spring 
Spr Average 
3.86 
3.63* 
3.74 
Begin Fall 
End fall 
Acad Average 
3.67 
3.25* 
3.46 
*Statistically significantly (p < 0.05) less than beginning values 
 
In the females? weight loss/no change group for observation period 1, overall 
investment in appearance significantly decreased (see Table 51). Their self-evaluative 
scores significantly decreased. In the females? weight loss/no change group for 
observation period 2, overall investment in appearance significantly decreased. Their 
self-evaluative and motivational scores significantly decreased. In the females? weight 
loss/no change group for observation period 3, overall investment in appearance 
significantly decreased. Their self-evaluative and motivational scores decreased. Out of 
 150
the three observation periods, the females? weight loss/no change group for observation 
period 2 (spring semester) had the highest overall appearance-investment, self-evaluative, 
and motivational scores. 
 
Table 52. 
Means of the ASI-R and all ?weight loss/no change? groups for male subjects 
(observation periods: 1, 2, and 3) 
 Observation Period 1 
Male (n=2) 
Observation Period 2 
Male (n=2) 
Observation Period 3 
Male (n=1) 
 
Composite 
 
Begin Fall 
End Fall 
Fall Average 
3.05 
3.30 
3.18 
End Fall 
End Spring 
Spr Average 
2.93 
2.90 
2.91 
Begin Fall 
End Spring 
Acad Average 
3.15 
3.65 
3.40 
 
Self-eval 
Begin Fall 
End Fall 
Fall Average 
2.46 
2.75 
2.60 
End Fall 
End Spring 
Spr Average 
2.58 
2.63 
2.60 
Begin Fall 
End Spring 
Acad Average 
2.50 
3.00 
2.75 
 
Motivational 
Begin Fall 
End Fall 
Fall Average 
3.94 
4.13 
4.03 
End Fall 
End Spring 
Spr Average 
3.44 
3.31* 
3.38 
Begin Fall 
End fall 
Acad Average 
4.13 
4.63 
4.38 
*Statistically significantly (p < 0.05) less than beginning values 
 
 In the males? weight loss/no change group for observation period 1 (fall 
semester), overall investment in appearance significantly increased (see Table 52). Their 
self-evaluative and motivational scores significantly increased. In the males? weight 
 151
loss/no change group for observation period 2 (spring semester), overall investment in 
appearance had no significant changes. Their self-evaluative scores increased and their 
motivational scores decreased. For the one male with weight loss/no change in 
observation period 3 (academic year), overall investment in appearance significantly 
increased. Self-evaluative and motivational scores significantly increased. Out of the 
three observation periods, the one male with weight loss/no change in observation period 
3 had the highest overall appearance-investment, self-evaluative, and motivational scores. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 152
CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 
 
Discussion and Conclusions 
The phrase ?Freshman 15? is used to describe the idea that college freshmen will 
gain an average of fifteen pounds of body weight in their first year of college. Although 
the idea pervades college campuses and inundates the minds of freshmen believers, little 
scientific evidence exists. The research is limited but suggests not all freshmen gain an 
average of 15 pounds. Weight change in female freshmen students has been documented 
more often than in males. Various factors associated with weight change in both cases 
have not been extensively documented. Previous studies were typically conducted for 
only one semester. Nearly all were conducted outside the southeast region of the United 
States where the prevalence of obesity is high.  
The purpose of this study was to longitudinally assess the ?Freshman 15? 
construct by investigating young men?s and women?s size and shape changes based on 
their three-dimensional body scan measurements and their body image constructs (body 
satisfaction/dissatisfaction and cognitive investments in appearance). Male and female 
subjects were analyzed together and separately. Data collection occurred at three points 
in time: (1) the beginning of fall semester 2006; (2) the end of fall semester 2006; and (3) 
the end of spring semester 2007. 
 
 153
A total of 36 subjects (26 females, 10 males) volunteered for the study at the 
beginning of fall semester. At the end of fall semester, all 36 subjects returned for the 
follow-up assessments. However, data from one female subject was not included in the 
data analysis due to an eating disorder diagnosis. At the end of spring semester, 30 
subjects (22 females, 8 males) returned for the follow-up assessments. As previously 
noted, data from the one female subject with the suspected eating disorder was not 
included in the data analysis for spring semester. Thus, 29 subjects (21 females, 8 males) 
were used in the spring semester data collection. 
 
Weight Change 
The weight change results of the study reported here found about 76% of the 
female and male students gained weight their first academic year, suggesting weight gain 
is an issue among college freshmen. Yet, instead of the well publicized ?Freshman 15,? 
this research suggested the ?Freshman 4.? The weight gain of about 4 pounds was the 
same for females and males.  
Of four studies found in the literature, only two studies examined weight change 
over an academic year in college freshmen (Graham & Jones, 2002; Ritter, 2006). Of the 
two, only one examined both females and males (Graham & Jones, 2002).  
There are similarities between the present study and research from Duncan and Simpson 
(Ritter, 2006). They conducted an unpublished study of the ?Freshman 15,? at the 
University of Guelph (Canada), which only used female freshmen students (Ritter, 2006). 
Their study found that weight gain in more than 100 first-year college women was an 
average of about 5 pounds over the course of the year. This is comparable to the present 
 
 154
study?s findings of about 4 pounds over the academic year.   
 Graham and Jones (2002) examined both females and males throughout the first 
academic year; differences were found between the present study and their research 
findings. Their subjects consisted of 49 freshmen at a small Midwestern liberal arts 
college observed at the beginning and end of the year. Their findings revealed no 
significant weight gain at the end of the year. An average of 1.5 pounds in weight loss 
was documented. Those researchers called the ?Freshman 15? a myth (Graham & Jones, 
2002).  
 Some studies only examined weight change during students? first semester. 
Levitsky et al. (2004) reported an average weight gain of 4 pounds after one semester. 
These findings were twice the average weight gain of 2 pounds found in the females and 
males after fall semester in the present study. 
 Hoffman et al. (2006) measured and documented weight gain during the second 
semester (spring) of freshmen year, providing data only for those who gained weight over 
those months. For the females and males in the study who gained weight, the mean 
increase in body weight was 6.82 pounds at the end of spring semester. Their mean 
weight gain for the weight gain group was slightly more than that of the present study. In 
the weight gain group (females and males) for spring semester, the mean weight gain was 
4.5 pounds for the present study.  
 When comparing the total weight changes reported here to the existing literature, 
the present study contributes important findings. Freshman weight gain was found for 
female and male students. It was not the highly publicized ?Freshman 15? pounds. It was 
a significant weight gain of about 4 pounds in both female and male subjects combined 
 
 155
over the academic year, while attending a large public university in the Southeastern part 
of the United States. Results of weight change reported in this study and results of the 
literature reviewed suggest that the ?Freshman 15? is not well found in research. The 
study suggests that though there is an average weight gain across freshmen studied, the 
number could be reduced to 4 to 5 pounds on average. With all of the changing aspects of 
college life, the weight gain in the freshman year is a possibility but is not inevitable. 
 
Change in Body Measurements 
This study employed use of 3D body scanning technology, which brought visual 
dimension to the research allowing researchers to see where weight change might occur. 
Three-dimensional body scanning is becoming a standard practice for research that 
involves body shape change, as well as body measurement change (Bougourd, Dekker, 
Ross, & Ward, 2000; McKinnon & Istook, 2002; Simmons & Istook, 2003; [TC]
2
, 2008a; 
Wells, Treleaven, & Cole, 2007). ?With the use of 3D body scanners, body measurement 
techniques can be non-contact, instant, and accurate? (Simmons & Istook, 2003, p. 306). 
Three-dimensional body scanning provides many more aspects in capturing 
measurements by using an electronically derived image-based method as compared with 
the traditional manual measurement approach which is particularly problematic or 
unreliable (Bougourd et al., 2000). Measurements of body scans are extracted in seconds 
and are consistent when measuring a large number of locations or landmarks on the 
human body. Additionally, it is a more desirable method of measuring the human body, 
allowing privacy of individuals in that no physical contact has to be made to extract 
measurements, unlike traditional measures (Simmons & Istook, 2003). 
 
 156
Table 53. 
Body scan measurement increases and all ?weight gain? groups for female subjects 
(observation periods: 1, 2, and 3) 
Observation Period 1 
(n=15) 
Observation Period 2
(n=11) 
Observation Period 3 
(n=15) 
Neck 1/2 inch Waist 
Bust 
7/8 inch 
5/8 inch 
Waist 
Hips 
1/2 inch 
1/2 inch 
 
For this study, body scan derived measurements were recorded for the neck, bust, 
biceps, waist, hips, and thighs for females; and for the neck, chest, biceps, waist, hips, 
and thighs for the males. When comparing the females? weight gain groups across the 
three observation periods, some patterns were found (see Table 53). In the females? 
weight gain group for observation period 1 (fall semester ? beginning of fall semester to 
the end of fall semester), the neck measurement increased the most with more than one-
half of an inch increase. The females? weight gain group in observation period 1 had a 
mean weight gain of 3.82 pounds. In the females? weight gain group for observation 
period 2 (spring semester ? end of fall semester to the end of spring semester), the 
measurements to increase the most were the waist (nearly seven-eighths of an inch) and 
the bust (about five-eighths of an inch). The females? weight gain group in observation 2 
had a mean weight gain of 4.06 pounds. In the females? weight gain group for 
observation period 3 (academic year ? beginning of fall semester to the end of spring 
semester), the measurements to increase the most were the hips (over one-half of an inch) 
and the waist (over one-half of an inch). The females? weight gain group for observation 
 
 157
period 3 had a mean weight gain of 5.6 pounds. There appeared to be common 
?measurement-area? increases for the waist measurement in observation period 2 and 3. 
Findings are consistent with literature, that suggest that the hips have are the most typical 
weight gain area for females (Kalodner & Scarano, 1992; Bird, 2006). Observation 
period 3 had the highest mean weight gain, with the hip measurement increasing over 
one-half of an inch. 
 
Table 54. 
Body scan measurement increases and all ?weight gain? groups for male subjects 
(observation periods: 1, 2, and 3) 
Observation Period 1 
(n=6) 
Observation Period 2
(n=6) 
Observation Period 3 
(n=7) 
Thighs 
Waist 
Bicep 
1 inch 
1/2 inch 
3/8 inch 
Chest 
Waist 
Hips 
1 inch 
1/4 inch 
1/4 inch 
Chest 
Waist 
Bicep 
Hips 
Thighs 
7/8 inch 
2/3 inch 
1/2 inch 
2/5 inch 
2/5 inch 
 
When comparing the males? weight gain groups across the three observation 
periods, patterns were found (see Table 54). In the males? weight gain group for 
observation period 1 (fall semester ? beginning of fall semester to the end of fall 
semester), the measurements with the most increase were the thighs (nearly one inch), the 
waist (one-half of an inch), and the bicep (about three-eighths of an inch). The males? 
 
 158
weight gain group for observation period 1 had a mean weight gain of 3.37 pounds. In the 
males? weight gain group for observation period 2 (spring semester ? end of fall semester 
to the end of spring semester), the measurements with the most increase were the chest 
(about one inch), the hips (nearly one-third of an inch), and the waist (about one-fourth of 
an inch). The males? weight gain group for observation period 2 had a mean weight gain 
of 5.33 pounds. In the males? weight gain group for observation period 3 (academic year 
? beginning of fall semester to the end of spring semester), the measurements with the 
most increase were the chest (nearly seven-eighths of an inch), the waist (nearly two-
thirds of an inch), the bicep (about one-half of an inch), the hips (two-fifths of an inch), 
and the thighs (nearly two-fifths of an inch). The males? weight gain group for 
observation period 3 had a mean weight gain of 6.23 pounds. There appeared to be 
common ?measurement-area? increases for the waist in observation periods 1, 2, and 3. 
There appeared to be common ?measurement-area? increases for the chest, hips, and 
waist in observation periods 2 and 3. There appeared to be common ?measurement-area? 
increases for the thighs and waist in observation periods 1 and 3. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 159
Table 55. 
Body scan measurement decreases and all ?weight loss/no change? groups for female 
subjects (observation periods: 1, 2, and 3) 
Observation Period 1 
(n=6) 
Observation Period 2
(n=10) 
Observation Period 3 
(n=6) 
Waist 
Hips 
Thighs 
-7/8 inch 
-3/4 inch 
-1/2 inch 
Bust 
Hips 
Neck 
-5/8 inch 
-1/3 inch 
-1/2 inch 
Bust 
Hips 
Neck 
Thighs 
-7/8 inch 
-2/3 inch 
-1/2 inch 
-1/2 inch 
 
When comparing the females? weight loss/no change groups across the three 
observation periods, some patterns were found (see Table 55). In the females? weight 
loss/no change group for observation period 1 (fall semester ? beginning of fall semester 
to the end of fall semester), the measurements that decreased the most were the waist 
(about seven-eighths of an inch), the hips (about three-fourths of an inch), and the thighs 
(about one-half of an inch). The females? weight loss/no change group for observation 
period 1 had a mean weight change of -3.07 pounds. In the females? weight loss/no 
change group for observation period 2 (spring semester ? end of fall semester to the end 
of spring semester), the measurements with the most decrease were the bust (nearly five-
eighths of an inch), the neck (one-half of an inch), and the hips (nearly one-third of an 
inch). The females? weight loss/no change group for observation period 2 had a mean 
weight change of -1.56 pounds. In the females? weight loss/no change group for 
observation period 3 (academic year ? beginning of fall semester to the end of spring 
 
 160
semester), the measurements with the most decrease were the bust (nearly seven-eighths 
of an inch), the hips (about two-thirds of an inch), the thighs (about one-half of an inch), 
and the neck (nearly one-half of an inch). The females? weight loss/no change group for 
observation period 3 had a mean weight change of -2.67 pounds. There appeared to be 
common ?measurement-area? decreases for the hip measurement in observation periods 
1, 2, and 3. There appeared to be common ?measurement-area? decreases for the thigh 
and hip measurement in observation periods 1 and 3. There appeared to be common 
?measurement-area? decreases for the bust, neck, and hip measurement in observation 
periods 2 and 3. 
 
Table 56. 
Body scan measurement decreases and all ?weight loss/no change? groups for male 
subjects (observation periods: 1, 2, and 3) 
Observation Period 1 
(n=2) 
Observation Period 2
(n=2) 
Observation Period 3 
(n=1) 
Thighs 
Waist 
-3/4 inch 
-1/6 inch 
Thighs -2/5 inch Thighs 
Waist 
-1/2 inch 
-1/2 inch 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 161
Table 57. 
Body scan measurement increases and all ?weight loss/no change? groups for male 
subjects (observation periods: 1, 2, and 3) 
Observation Period 1 
(n=2) 
Observation Period 2
(n=2) 
Observation Period 3 
(n=1) 
Chest 
Bicep 
Hips 
1/2 inch 
1/4 inch 
1/5 inch 
Bicep minimal Chest 4/5 inch 
 
When comparing the males? weight loss/no change groups across the three 
observation periods, patterns were found (see Table 56 and Table 57). In the males? 
weight loss/no change group for observation period 1 (fall semester ? beginning of fall 
semester to the end of fall semester), the measurements with the most decrease were the 
thigh (about three-fourths of an inch) and the waist (about one-sixth of an inch). The 
males? weight loss/no change group for observation period 1 had a mean weight change 
of -1.3 pounds. In the males? weight loss/no change group for observation period 2 
(spring semester ? end of fall semester to the end of spring semester), the measurement 
with the most amount of decrease was the thigh (about two-fifths of an inch). The males? 
weight loss/no change group for observation period 2 had a mean weight change of -3.4 
pounds. In the weight loss/no change group for observation period 3 (academic year ? 
beginning of fall semester to the end of spring semester), the measurements with the most 
amount of decrease were the thigh (about one-half of an inch) and the waist (about one-
half of an inch). The males? weight loss/no change group for observation period 3 had a 
 
 162
mean weight change of -0.8 pounds. There appeared to be common ?measurement-area? 
decreases for the thighs in observation periods 1, 2, and 3. There appeared to be common 
?measurement-area? decreases for the waist and thighs in observation periods 1 and 3. 
There seemed to be some patterns of measurement increase in the males? weight loss/no 
change groups. In the males? weight loss/no change group for observation period 1 (fall 
semester ? beginning of fall semester to the end of fall semester), the measurements with 
increased amounts were the chest (about one-half of an inch), the bicep (about one-fourth 
of an inch), and the hips (about one-fifth of an inch). In the males? weight loss/no change 
group for observation period 2 (spring semester ? end of fall semester to the end of spring 
semester), the measurement with an increase was the bicep. In the males? weight loss/no 
change group for observation period 3 (academic year ? beginning of fall semester to the 
end of spring semester), the measurement with an increase was the chest (four-fifths of an 
inch). The common ?measurement-area? increases for the bicep measurement were found 
in observation periods 1 and 2. The common ?measurement-area? increases for the chest 
measurement were found in observation periods 1 and 3. These increases in 
measurements for the males? weight loss/no change groups could indicate that these 
males participated in physical activity that included some combination of weight and 
strength training. The bicep and chest areas in men are targeted areas for increased 
muscle development for those who engage in certain types of physical activity. 
There appeared to be a greater trend in lower body weight changes over upper 
body weight changes from the results reported here for female subjects over the academic 
year (subjects that gained or lost weight). The same seems to be true for the male subjects 
who gained or lost weight throughout the academic year, with the exception of the males 
 
 163
who lost and/or maintained their weight and had increases in the bicep and chest 
measurements. 
 
Body Satisfaction 
Body image has multidimensional definitions with multiple interpretations and 
meanings. Definitions stem from a range of different theoretical orientations, including 
phenomenology, neurology, experimental psychology, psychoanalysis and feminist 
philosophy. According to Cash and Pruzinsky (2002, p.38), ?satisfaction or 
dissatisfaction with one?s body, including evaluative beliefs about it,? refers to body 
image evaluation. Body image evaluations develop from the degrees of differences or 
similarities between self-perceived physical characteristics and personally valued 
appearance ideals (Cash & Szymanski, 1995). 
The present study reported here suggested a relationship between weight gain and 
body dissatisfaction. As fall semester progressed, the group of subjects who gained 
weight became less satisfied with their bodies than at the beginning of fall semester. 
Female subjects who lost weight or maintained their weight by the end of fall semester 
showed an increase in body satisfaction; the small males? weight loss/no change group 
maintained their body satisfaction for fall semester. When comparing the weight gain 
group to the weight loss/no change group, the females? weight loss/no change group were 
more satisfied with their bodies than the females? weight gain group for fall semester. 
Like the females, the males? weight loss/no change group was more satisfied with their 
bodies than the males? weight gain group for fall semester.  
 
 164
The findings in this present research are consistent with some of the reviewed 
literature. A study by Heatherton et al. (1997) found that body image concerns increased 
with increasing body weight. Furthermore, increased body weight was found to be the 
strongest predictor of body dissatisfaction in women. Body dissatisfaction emerges as an 
individual compares her/his perception of actual body size with the internalized notion of 
cultural ideals, interpersonal experiences, physical characteristics, and personality 
attributes (Blood, 2005).  
When comparing the females? weight gain group to the males? weight gain group 
for spring semester and the academic year, the males? were more satisfied with their 
bodies than the females. Other researchers have found differences between females? and 
males? body satisfaction as well, suggesting that men tend to be relatively satisfied with 
their bodies (Forbes, Adams-Curtis, & Rade, 2001; Rozin, Trachtenburg, & Cohen, 
2001). Studies show that women diet more (Liebman, Cameron, & Carson, 2001; 
Wardle, Haase, & Steptoe, 2004) and are more frustrated with their bodies than men 
(Lokken, Ferraro, Kirchner, & Bowling, 2003; Rozin et al., 2001; Smith, Thompson, & 
Raczynski, 1999; Yates, Edman, & Aruguete, 2004).  
Some research suggests that young women?s body images may actually be 
improving. By using over 15 years of archived MBSRQ data collected at Old Dominion 
University, a cross-sectional investigation was conducted by Cash, Morrow, 
Hrabosky, and Perry (2004). The researchers observed changes in multiple facets of body 
image among 3,127 male and female college students from 1983 through 2001. The same 
standardized assessment was used in 22 studies. The four MBSRQ subscales examined 
were: Appearance Evaluation, Body Areas Satisfaction, Overweight Preoccupation, and 
 
 165
Appearance Orientation. From the 1980s to the early 1990s, young women?s appearance 
evaluation, body satisfaction, and overweight preoccupation worsened significantly, but it 
progressively improved significantly in the late 1990s. Men?s body images remained 
relatively stable over the time periods and were more positive than those of the women. 
They also had lower appearance investment than the women. The only significant change 
for men was their decline in overweight preoccupation following the 1980s.  
Pope, Phillips, and Olivardia (2000) provided a foundation for heightened 
concerns about male preoccupation with physical appearance. The findings of the present 
study reported may support this issue, as the group of males with weight loss or no 
change had increases in body satisfaction.  Increases in muscle mass may have taken 
place in some of the male subjects as well. There seemed to be some patterns of 
measurement increase in the males? weight loss/no change groups. In the males? weight 
loss/no change group for observation period 1 (fall semester ? beginning of fall semester 
to the end of fall semester), the body measurements with increased amounts were the 
chest (about one-half of an inch), the bicep (about one-fourth of an inch), and the hips 
(about one-fifth of an inch). In the males? weight loss/no change group for observation 
period 2 (spring semester ? end of fall semester to the end of spring semester), the body 
measurement with an increase was the bicep. In the males? weight loss/no change group 
for observation period 3 (academic year ? beginning of fall semester to the end of spring 
semester), the measurement with an increase was the chest (four-fifths of an inch). The 
common ?measurement-area? increases for the bicep measurement were found in 
observation periods 1 and 2. The common ?measurement-area? increases for the chest 
measurement were found in observation periods 1 and 3. These increases in 
 
 166
measurements for the males? weight loss/no change groups may indicate that these males 
are preoccupied with physical activity that includes some combination of weight and 
strength training for the upper body. The males of the weight loss/no change group for 
observation period 1 were mostly satisfied with their bodies, and the one male of the 
weight loss/ no change group for observation period 3 was more than ?mostly satisfied? 
with his body. 
 A meta-analysis of attractiveness and body image utilized 222 studies, which 
indicated that the gender differences in body dissatisfaction are increasing, with women 
becoming more dissatisfied than men (Feingold & Mazzella, 1998). By the end of spring 
semester for the females? weight loss/no change group, body satisfaction increased from 
the end of fall semester. For the males? weight loss/no change group, body satisfaction 
actually decreased by the end of spring semester from the end of fall semester. These 
males who lost weight or had no change in weight were physically smaller and may have 
wanted to be larger. When comparing females and males? weight loss/no change groups, 
the females were more satisfied with their bodies than the males? weight loss/no change 
group for spring semester. For all subjects in spring semester, the weight gain group was 
less satisfied with their bodies than the weight loss/no change group. 
All subjects combined were fairly satisfied with their bodies for the academic 
year. The males? weight gain group was more satisfied with their bodies than the 
females? weight gain group for the academic year. Of the weight loss/no change groups 
for the academic year, the males? weight loss/no change group reported greater 
satisfaction than the females? weight loss/no change group. The females? weight loss/no 
change group was more satisfied with their bodies than the females? weight gain group 
 
 167
when compared over the academic year. Like the females? weight loss/no change group, 
the males? weight loss/no change group was more satisfied than the males? weight gain 
group for the academic year. Overall, the weight loss/no change subjects were more 
satisfied with their bodies than the weight gain subjects for the academic year. When 
combining both the weight gain and weight loss/no change groups for the academic year, 
the females were less satisfied with their bodies than the males.  
In comparison to the studies in the reviewed literature similarities continue to 
arise. A study by Tiggemann and Lynch (2001) revealed that women?s desires to be 
thinner do not diminish across age spans, nor does their preoccupation with being 
overweight, or their satisfaction with appearance. The ideal shape presented in the media 
has become thinner over the past 30 years, yet women have actually become heavier in 
weight. As an apparent consequence of this weight change from the supposed ideal body 
size and shape, many women have experienced dissatisfaction with their body size and 
shape. This is so common that researchers call it ?a normative discontent? (Rodin et al., 
1985; Tiggemann & Lynch, 2001).  
Many men want to alter their body image, as do women, according to Pope, 
Phillips, and Olivardia (2000). Men are frequently obsessed with body shape and 
muscularity. Other researchers highlight the idea that lack of exercise versus compulsive 
exercise, and appearance obsessions are common problems of body shape concerns faced 
by men today (Anderson, Cohn, & Holbrook, 2000). Such body shape concerns provide a 
standpoint for their body image and body satisfaction/dissatisfaction awareness. These 
two studies found that the desire for men to meet the current appearance standards led 
many of them to spend excessive amounts of time attempting to change their appearance, 
 
 168
and in some cases to take extensive risks in doing so (such as using steroids). A form of 
body image anguish may emerge in young men as a vague sense of concern regarding 
body weight or shape. This lost sense of concern is only apparent to the outside world 
and/or friends with whom young men feel they cannot express their self-esteem, weight, 
shape, or image issues. Instead of expressing them, they neglect them. Neglecting to 
express their feelings towards their bodies makes it difficult for researchers to make a 
sound judgment (Pope et. al., 2000).  
The discontentment with one?s body image has been labeled in multiple ways, 
including negative body image, body image disturbance, and body image dissatisfaction. 
All notions are often associated with body weight and weight-sensitive body parts. The 
notions are, in many cases, most prevalent in women and overweight people (Cash & 
Pruzinsky, 2002). Discontentment with body image is a central factor in weight loss 
decisions, including how much weight to lose and calculating whether losing weight will 
significantly benefit the individual and lead to positive changes in body image (Cash & 
Pruzinsky, 2002). In a cross-sectional study, researchers surveyed 1,200 Radcliffe 
undergraduates in 1982 and 1992 (Heatherton, Keel, Nichols, & Mahamedi, 1995). Their 
primary goal was to compare the two cohorts on weight, dieting, and eating-disordered 
symptoms, but they also included an assessment of students? perceptions of their weight. 
Results reflected a decline in a variety of eating-disordered symptoms over the decade, 
and women in 1992 were less likely to consider themselves overweight than those in 
1982 (31% vs. 42%, respectively). The male cohorts showed very few differences 
between 1982 and 1992.  
 
 169
Another generation of body image measures has concentrated on isolating and 
identifying specific components of body image weight-related issues present in multiple 
populations. Behavioral aspects of body image are quantified in the Body Image 
Avoidance Questionnaire (Rosen, Srebnik, Saltzberg, & Wendt, 1991), and the Goldfarb 
Fear of Fat Scale (GFFS) (Goldfarb, Dykens, & Gerrard, 1985). The Body Image 
Avoidance Questionnaire assessed the frequency with which 145 female undergraduates 
engaged in avoidance behaviors related to body image. The GFFS investigated the 
behavioral patterns of females who feared weight gain. 
 Replicating previous findings by Cash and Szymanski (1995), Cash and Henry 
(1995) found that the evaluative body-image gestalt is a weighted, additive composite of 
discontent with most aspects of one's appearance. In their study, almost one-half of the 
women reported globally negative evaluations of their appearance and concerns with 
being or becoming overweight. Over one-third of the women expressed body-image 
discontent or dissatisfaction, which averaged across eight isolated physical areas or 
aspects of the body (Cash & Henry, 1995).  
 
Appearance Investment 
Much of the literature on body image concentrates on the evaluative dimension 
and overlooks body image investment (importance or cognitive-behavioral salience of 
one?s appearance) (Cash & Deagle, 1997; Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002). According to Cash 
and Pruzinsky (2002, p.38), ?the cognitive, behavioral, and emotional importance of the 
body for self-evaluation? refers to body image investment. The body image construct is 
built around the basis of self-schemas related to one?s appearance. In an early defining 
 
 170
study, Markus (1977) identified self-schemas as ?cognitive generalizations about the self, 
derived from past experience, that organize and guide the processing of self-related 
information contained in an individual?s social experience? (p. 64). Markus offered the 
idea that a person who is schematic of their body and appearance will process important 
information differently than a person who is not schematic (1977). Cash and Labarge 
(1996) developed the original Appearance Schemas Inventory (ASI) to assess these body 
image self-schemas that reflect one?s core and the influence of one?s appearance in life.  
Appearance-schematic processing and activating events based on cognitive-
behavioral perspectives develop from related events that activate self-evaluations of one?s 
physical appearance (Cash, 1997). According to Cash?s and colleagues? (2003, p.309) 
revision of the Appearance Schemas Inventory, the first ASI-R factor assesses the self-
evaluative salience of appearance or beliefs about how his/her looks influence their 
personal or social worth and sense of self. The other ASI-R factor developed by Cash and 
colleagues (2003, p.309), assesses the individual?s motivational salience about being 
attractive and managing their appearance. 
The results of the present study suggested relationships between the ASI-R body 
image dimensions (composite, self-evaluative, and motivational investment in 
appearance) and weight change groups. The scores for the motivational salience factor 
were higher for all subjects at each observation period than the scores for the self-
evaluative salience factor. Therefore, valuing and attending to one?s appearance and 
engaging in grooming behaviors (appearance-management) to appear or feel attractive 
has seemed at least relatively important to all subjects, whether they gained or lost weight 
over the academic year. 
 
 171
Some appearance investment patterns for female and male subjects for fall and 
spring semester were apparent. All female subjects, whether they belonged to the weight 
gain group (average weight gain of 3.82 pounds) or the weight loss/no change group 
(average weight loss of 3.07 pounds) for fall semester, showed declines in their 
composite investment in appearance and self-evaluative investment in appearance scores. 
Both groups had higher motivational scores by the end of fall semester. The females? 
weight loss/no change group, with a mean weight change of  -1.56 pounds for spring 
semester, showed significant drops in overall, self-evaluative, and motivational scores by 
the end of spring semester. The females? weight gain group, with a mean weight change 
of 4.06 pounds for spring semester, also showed a significant decline in their overall 
appearance investment and significantly lower motivational scores by the end of spring 
semester. The females? weight gain group for the academic year, with a mean weight 
change of 5.6 pounds, had significantly lower composite, self-evaluative, and 
motivational scores. The females? weight loss/no change group for the academic year, 
with a mean weight change of -2.67 pounds, had significantly lower composite, self-
evaluative, and motivational scores. 
The males? weight change groups did not have many patterns in common for fall 
and spring semester as the females? weight change groups. The males? weight gain group 
from the beginning of fall semester to the end of fall semester, with a mean weight 
change of 3.37 pounds, had significantly higher composite and motivational scores. The 
males? weight loss/no change group, with a mean weight change of -1.3 pounds, had 
significantly higher composite, self-evaluative, and motivational scores by the end of fall 
semester. The males? weight gain group by the end of spring semester, with a mean 
 
 172
weight change of 5.33 pounds, had significantly lower composite, self-evaluative, and 
motivational scores. The males? weight loss/no change group, with a mean weight change 
of -3.4 pounds by the end of spring semester, had significantly lower composite and 
motivational scores. Their self-evaluative scores were significantly higher. The males? 
weight gain group by the end of the academic year, with a mean weight change of 6.23 
pounds, had significantly lower composite, self-evaluative, and motivational scores. The 
males? weight loss/no change group by the end of the academic year, with a mean weight 
change of -0.8 pounds, had significantly higher composite, self-evaluative, and 
motivational scores. 
When comparing weight change groups to each other for each semester and the 
academic year (weight gain versus weight loss/no change), differences and 
commonalities are perceptible. The females? weight gain group for fall semester was 
more invested in appearance than the females? weight loss/no change group. Their self-
evaluative and motivational scores were both higher. In sum, the females? weight gain 
groups were all more motivationally invested in their appearance than the females? 
weight loss/no change groups.  
The transition into the college atmosphere from high school may have triggered 
changes in attitudes on managing/maintaining one?s appearance or self-evaluations of 
their appearance. Such changes in attitudes could have been activated by the ?dress 
down? effect. In a day-to-day college student?s schedule, such as going to and from class, 
?dressing down? for class is a common act made by many students. A typical college 
student ?look? for ?dressing down,? would be shorts and a T-shirt with flip-flops. Such 
?dressing down? behaviors may have adapted as a college mainstay in today?s college 
 
 173
students? minds, rather than the professional attire someone would think students would 
be implementing for future transition from college to the workforce. The lack of self-
evaluation and motivation to have the ?proper? look is not widely implemented by the 
existing majority of ?already-established? college students (sophomores to seniors). So, if 
these students do not have the motivation or desires to set a ?proper? look for college 
students then the new, incoming freshmen have no need to keep up their looks. Many 
students transitioning in their first semester of college start out making the extra efforts. 
Extra efforts tend to diminish as their desire to ?blend in? takes affect as the first year 
progresses. They may recognize that their extra efforts are not worth it, as studying and 
other activities consume their time as well. Results reported here in the study showed that 
students had lower self-evaluative and motivational scores as the year progressed, 
suggesting their lack of overall appearance investment by the end of the academic year. 
From a broader point of view, this could be just another societal change from the past 
three decades, when the vast majority of the population all began to slide to the more 
casual appeal, especially in the corporate world. The ?Casual Friday? turned into ?Casual 
College? for students it seems.  
A study by Cash (1997) investigated distressed body image emotions. To manage 
or cope with distressing body image emotions, Cash (1997) identified self-regulatory 
actions and reactions for individuals engaging in cognitive behaviors to adjust to 
environmental events. Adjustive or coping reactions include avoidant and body 
concealment behaviors, compensatory strategies, and appearance correcting rituals (such 
as motivational-grooming behaviors). These maneuvers serve to maintain body image 
 
 174
reinforcement, as they enable the individual to temporarily escape, reduce, or regulate 
any negative body image discomfort.  
The males? weight gain group for fall semester was slightly less invested in their 
overall appearance, had higher self-evaluative scores and lower motivational scores than 
the males? weight loss/no change group for fall semester. The males? weight gain group 
for spring semester was more invested in their overall appearance, had higher self-
evaluative and motivational scores than the males? weight loss/no change group for 
spring semester. The males? weight gain group for the academic year was less invested in 
their overall appearance, had lower self-evaluative and motivational scores than the 
males? weight loss/no change group for the academic year. In sum, no common trends 
were shown amongst all males? weight gain groups versus all males? weight loss/no 
change groups across the investments in appearance. Each observation period provided 
differing results.  
When comparing all weight gain subjects to all weight loss subjects for each 
semester and the academic year, differences and commonalities were apparent. The 
weight gain group for fall semester was more invested in their overall appearance, had 
higher self-evaluative and motivational scores than the weight loss/no change group for 
fall semester. The weight gain group for spring semester was equally invested in their 
overall appearance investment and their self-evaluative appearance investment, and had 
slightly higher motivational scores than the weight loss/no change group for spring 
semester. The weight gain group for the academic year was more invested in their overall 
appearance investment, had higher self-evaluative and motivational scores than the 
weight loss/no change group for the academic year. In sum, all weight gain groups for 
 
 175
each observation period had higher motivational scores than the weight loss/no change 
groups. 
The ASI-R has limitations. The media?s messages in the Western society make it 
almost impossible for any young adult to be satisfied or create an appropriate amount of 
investment in one?s appearance without feeling as if they have continued to fail society?s 
expectations. Therefore, a dysfunctionality of higher ASI-R scores arise in that they may 
reflect a negative evaluation (or make-up through extra investment in some cases) rather 
than emphasizing one?s appearance investment in relation to self-evaluation. The 
distinction between the self-evaluative salience and motivational salience dimensions is 
observationally captivating. Valuing and managing one?s physical appearance may not 
necessarily provide the suitable adjustment to one?s body. More clearly, the 
dysfunctionality of high investment portrays beliefs that link one?s appearance to its 
comparisons with others, and potential to affect one?s life as integral to one?s sense of 
worth and confidence.   
 
Limitations 
 There were several limitations to the present study. First, recruitment was not 
entirely random; students were primarily recruited from classes within the College of 
Human Sciences with majors in the areas of concentration in nutrition and food science, 
and in apparel merchandising, design, and production management. Such majors often 
attract students with more concerns about their body weight and body image (body 
satisfaction and investment in appearance). Also, there was a reliance on the willingness 
of students to have their height and weight, body scan measurements, and body 
 
 176
composition taken at three observation periods over the academic year. Thus, self-
selection bias could have introduced some degree of bias because the present study 
measured only those students who felt comfortable enough with their bodies to be 
measured those three times. Those students may have already had an interest in 
maintaining their bodies, or even wanted to keep their weight in-check in comparison to 
the ?Freshman 15? or any other dimension of size, whether body composition or body 
measurements.  
 Second, subjects were not blinded to the subject matter being observed. Flyers and 
information regarding the study and what it entailed were sent out to all subjects who 
might be interested in being part of the study. Third, a small sample size for was used 
because of funding limitations to provide incentives. Also, some subjects did not return 
for all observations. They may have felt uncomfortable with their bodies and decided 
against the final two testing periods. Plus, a small sample size is always a limitation for 
any statistical analysis. Fourth, problems with reporting on the questionnaires could have 
led to misrepresentation of data. One example was the frequency with some of the 
appearance investment activity, which could have been over- or under- estimated by 
degrees of behaviors.  
 
Implications and Recommendations for Future Research 
 These results provide some information as to the type of weight changes and where 
body measurement changes occur in students as they move through their first year in a 
college environment. The fact that some college students gained weight while others lost 
weight suggests that the ?Freshman 15? is a myth, but it also sheds light on who gains 
 
 177
weight and where weight gain may possibly occur across sexes. This will allow educators 
to target programs to promote and educate students on the benefits of a healthy mind and 
body, and to steer them away from extreme weight gain or weight loss. The potential for 
interventions to prevent extreme weight gain among students entering college is great and 
important given the continued increase in the number of overweight and obese adults.  
 It is perhaps important for investigators to help educate students or implement 
programs designed to combat negative body image and weight-related issues. This would 
help students to recognize that seemingly minor and perhaps even harmless changes in 
weight may result in sizeable changes of body image over a longitudinal period of time, 
partially due to their changing cultural environment. These results could provide 
investigators with a model of physical change and physiological change (body image) 
that accompanies transition from teens into adulthood. Thus, it may serve, as an impetus 
for investigators to inform students that taking responsibility of their health and dietary 
choices, as well as defining them against the society?s perfect-image obsessed ideals 
would in turn relay positive lifestyles based upon individual needs.  
 Furthermore, as the present study suggests, helping a freshman college student 
understand the course of his/her own body image experiences that are activated and 
unfold in everyday life may be an important means for change surrounding weight-
related issues. Investigators should continue to examine the value of body image in 
relation to body satisfaction and cognitive investment in appearance in the prevention and 
treatment of significant body image disturbances (the possibility of extreme weight 
change). The current findings suggest the need for a second study which should include 
implications for research in college students during and after their freshman year of 
 
 178
college and on through their sophomore to senior year of college. Also, researchers 
should conduct additional studies to better characterize weight change and body 
measurement patterns in relation body image issues among freshman college students as 
well as college students throughout their entire college careers. 
179 
 
REFERENCES 
 
American Obesity Association (2000). Objectives for Achieving and Maintaining a Healthy 
Population. Retrieved November 12, 2007, from 
http://www.obesity.org/subs/advocacy/HealthyWeight_2010.shtml  
Andersen, A. E., Cohn, L., & Holbrook, T. (2000). Making weight: Men's concerns with 
food, weight, shape, and appearance. Carlsbad: Gurze Books. 
Ashdown, S. P., Loker, S., Schoenfelder, K., & Lyman-Clarke, L. (2004, Summer). Using 
3D scans for fit analysis. Journal of Textile and Apparel, Technology and 
Management, 4(1), 1-12. 
Berscheid, E., Walster, E., & Bohrnstedt, G. (1973, November). The happy American 
body: A survey report. Psychology Today, 7, 119-131. 
Bird, P. J. (2006, May). Why does fat deposit on the hips and thighs of women and around 
the stomachs of men?. Scientific American, Retrieved March 16, 2007, from 
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=why-does-fat-deposit-on-t 
Black, Jessica D. (2007, January). Beating the freshman 15. The Nemours Foundation, 
Retrieved April 12, 2007, from 
http://www.kidshealth.org/teen/school_jobs/college/freshman_15.html 
Blood, S. K. (2005). Body work: The social construction of women's body image. New 
York, NY: Routledge.
180 
 
Bottamini, G., & Ste-Marie, D. M. (2006). Male voices on body image. International 
              Journal of Men's Health, 5, 109-132. 
Bougourd, J. P., Dekker, L., Ross, G., & Ward, J. P. (2000). A comparison of women?s 
sizing by 3D electronic scanning and traditional anthropometry. Journal of the 
Textile Institute, 91(2), 163-73. 
Brelsford, T. N., Hummel, R. M., & Barrios, B. A. (1992). The Bulimia Test-Revised: A 
psychometric investigation. Psychological Assessment, 4, 399-401. 
Buckley, P. (2005). How to avoid the freshman 15 weight gain - avoid the freshman 15 fat. 
Retrieved September 16, 2006, Web site: 
http://www.bodybuildingforyou.com/articles-submit/paul-buckley/beating-
freshman-15.htm 
CAD Modelling. (1992). Method for making patterns, in particular for the clothing 
industry. Retrieved March 16, 2008, from Free Patents Online Web site: 
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP0554647.html 
CAS. (2003). Retrieved March 16, 2007, from Center on an Aging Society Web site: 
http://ihcrp.georgetown.edu/agingsociety/pubhtml/obesity2/obesity2.html 
Cash, T. F. (1992). Initial development of the Appearance Schemas Inventory. Unpublished 
research. Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA.  
Cash, T. F. (1993). Body-image attitudes among obese enrollees in a commercial weight-
loss program. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, 1099-1103. 
Cash, T. F. (1997). The body image workbook: An 8-step program for learning to like your 
looks. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger. 
181 
 
Cash, T. F. (2000, January). MBSRQ users? manual. Retrieved March 16, 2006, from Body 
Image Assessments: MBSRQ Web site: http://www.body-
images.com/assessments/mbsrq.html 
Cash, T. F. (2002). Women?s body images. In G. Wingood & R. DiClemente (Eds.), 
Handbook of women?s sexual and reproductive health (pp. 175-194). New York: 
Plenum Press. 
Cash, T. F. (2003). ASI-R brief manual. Retrieved March 16, 2006, from Body Image 
Assessments: ASI-R Web site: http://www.body-images.com/assessments/asi.html 
Cash, T. F., & Deagle, III. E. A. (1997). The nature and extent of body-image disturbance 
in anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa: A meta-analysis. International Journal of 
Eating Disorders, 31, 455-460.   
Cash, T. F., & Fleming, E. C. (2002). The impact of body-image experiences: Development 
of the Body Image Quality of Life Inventory. International Journal of Eating 
Disorders, 31, 455-460. 
Cash, T. F., & Henry, P.E. (1995). Women?s body images: The results of a national survey 
in the U.S.A. Sex Roles, 33, 19-28. 
Cash, T. F., & Labarge, A. S. (1996). Development of the appearance schemas inventory: 
A new cognitive body-image assessment. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 20, 37-
50. 
Cash, T. F., Melnyk, S., & Hrabosky, J. I. (2004). The assessment of body-image 
investment: An extensive revision of the Appearance Schemas Inventory. 
International Journal of Eating Disorders, 35, 305-316. 
182 
 
Cash, T. F., Morrow, J. A., Hrabosky, J. I., & Perry, A. A. (2004, December). How has 
body image changed? A cross-sectional investigation of college women and men 
from 1983 to 2001. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(6), 1081-
1089.   
Cash, T. F., & Pruzinsky, T. (Eds). (2002). Body image: A handbook of theory, research, 
and clinical practice. New York: The Guilford Press. 
Cash, T. F., Santos, M. T., & Williams, E. F. (2005). Coping with body-image threats and 
challenges: Validation of the Body Image Coping Strategies Inventory. Journal of 
Psychosomatic Research, 58, 190-199. 
Cash, T. F., & Szymanski, M. L. (1995). The development and validation of the Body-
Image Ideals Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 466-477. 
Cash, T. F., Winstead, B. A., & Janda, L. H. (1986, April). The great American shape-up: 
Body image survey report. Psychology Today, 20, 30-37. 
Cattarin, J. A., & Thompson, J. K. (1994). A three-year longitudinal study of body image 
and eating disturbance in adolescent females. Eating Disorders: The Journal of 
Treatment and Prevention, 2, 114-125. 
Cattarin, J. A., Thompson, J. K., Thomas, C., & Williams, R. (2000). Body image, mood, 
and televised images of attractiveness: The role of social comparison. Journal of 
Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 220-239. 
CBS News Online, (2006, September, 1). Battling first year weight gain. Retrieved March 
15, 2007, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/education/weight-gain.html 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance 
System. Retrieved May 20, 2006, Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/index.htm 
183 
 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007a). Body Mass Index. Retrieved 
November 06, 2007, Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/bmi/index.htm  
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007b). Overweight and Obesity. Retrieved 
June 05, 2007, Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/index.htm 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). Introduction to Anthropometry. 
Retrieved March 16, 2008, from CDC Web site: 
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes3/cdrom/NCHS/MANUALS/ANTHR
O.PDF 
Cohen, J. (2006, August 29). Get the skinny on the 'Freshman 15'. Retrieved October 5, 
2006, from The Temple News Web site: http://temple-news.com/2006/08/29/get-
the-skinny-on-the-freshman-15/ 
Cornell University. (2004). Hot topics in nutrition: The "Freshman Fifteen". Retrieved 
March 16, 2006, from Nutrition & Eating Problems Web site: 
http://www.gannett.cornell.edu/top10Topics/nutritioneating/hotTopics/freshman15.
htm 
Cotton Inc. (2006). Cotton Competitiveness. Retrieved March 16, 2008, from Cotton Inc. 
Web site: http://www.cottoninc.com/EFSNewsNotes/NewsNotesIssue47/ 
Cotton Inc. (2002). The Women's Wear Initiative. Retrieved March 16, 2008, from Cotton 
Inc. Web site: 
http://www.cottoninc.com/CottonGrowerArticles/WomensWearInitiative/?S=Cotto
nGrowerArticles&Sort=0 
Cotton Inc. (1998). In Search of Jeans that Fit. Retrieved March 16, 2008, from Cotton Inc. 
Web site: www.cottoninc.com/WWD/homepage.cfm 
184 
 
Crandall, C. S. (1988). Social contagion of binge eating. Journal of Personality and Social 
Psychology, 55, 588-598. 
Cusumano, D. L., & Thompson, J. K. (1997). Body image and body shape ideals in 
magazines: Exposure, awareness, and internalization. Sex Roles, 37, 701-721. 
CUErgo. (2005). Anthropometry. Retrieved March 16, 2008, from CUErgo: Cornell 
University Ergonomics Web site: 
http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/DEA325notes/anthropometry.html 
Czaja, S. (1984). ?Hand anthropometry.? Technical Report presented to the U.S. 
Architectural Board and Transportation Barriers Compliance, Washington D.C. 
Delaney, M. E., O?Keefe, L. D., & Skene, K. M. L. (1997). Development of a sociocultural 
measure of a young women?s experiences with body weight and shape. Journal of 
Personality Assessment, 69, 63-80. 
Etcoff, N (1999). Survival of the prettiest: The science of beauty. New York: Doubleday. 
Evans, C., & Dolan, B. (1993). Body shape questionnaire: Derivation of shortened 
?alternate forms.? International Journal of Eating Disorders, 13(3), 315-321. 
Explore Cornell. (2003). The 3D body scanner. Retrieved March 16, 2007, from Cornell 
University Web site: http://www.bodyscan.human.cornell.edu/scene5b96.html 
Fallon, P., Katzman, M., & Wooley, S. (Eds.). (1994). Feminist perspectives on eating 
disorders. New York, NY: Guilford Press. 
Feingold, A., & Mazzella, R. (1998). Gender differences in body image are increasing. 
Psychological Science, 9, 190-195. 
Forbes, G. B., Adams-Curtis, L. E., & Rade, B. (2001). Body dissatisfaction in women and 
men: The role of gender-typing and self-esteem. Sex Roles, 44, 461-484. 
185 
 
Franzoi, S. L., & Shields, S. A. (1984). The body esteem scale: Multidimensional structure 
and sex differences in a college population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 
173-178. 
Fredrickson, B.L., & Noll, S.M. (1998). A mediational model linking self-objectification, 
body shame, and disordered eating. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 623-636. 
Freshman Fifteen. (2007). Freshman 15 (Fifteen) information. Retrieved June 10, 2007, 
from http://www.freshmanfifteen.com/ 
Frith, H., & Gleeson, K. (2004). Clothing and embodiment: Men managing body image and 
appearance. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 5, 40-48. 
Furnham, A., & Baguma, P. (1994). Cross-cultural differences in the evaluation of male 
and female body shapes. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 15, 81-89. 
Furnham, A., Dias, M., & McClelland, A. (1998). The role of body weight, waist-to-hip 
ratio, and breast size in judgments of female attractiveness. Sex Roles, 39, 311-326. 
Furnham, A., Tan, T., & McManus, C. (1997). Waist-to-hip ratio and preferences for body 
shape: A replication and extension. Journal of Personality and Individual 
Differences, 22, 539-549. 
Gardner, R. M., Friedman, B. N., & Jackson, N. A. (1998). Methodological concerns when 
using silhouettes to measure body image. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 387-395. 
Garner, D. M. (1997, January/February). The 1997 body image survey results. Psychology 
Today, 30, 30-44, 75-80, 84. 
Garner, D. M., & Garfinkel, P. E. (1979). The eating attitudes test: An index of the 
symptoms of anorexia nervosa. Psychological Medicine, 9, 273-279. 
186 
 
Garner, D. M., Garfinkel, P. E., Stancer, H. C., & Moldofsky, M. D. (1976). Body image 
disturbance in anorexia nervosa and obesity. Psychosomatic Medicine, 28, 327-337. 
Garner, D. M., Olmsted, M. P., Bohr, Y., & Garfinkel, P. E. (1982). The eating attitudes 
test: Psychometric features and clinical correlates. Psychological Medicine, 12, 
871-878. 
Garner, D. M., Olmsted, M. P., & Polivy, J. (1983). The Eating Disorder Inventory: A 
measure of cognitive-behavioral dimensions of anorexia nervosa and bulimia. In P. 
L. Darby, P. E. Garfinkel, D. M. Garner, & D. V. Coscina (Eds.), Anorexia 
nervosa: Recent developments in research. New York: Alan R. Liss, 173-184. 
Garrett, C. (1998). Beyond anorexia: Narrative, spirituality and recovery. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press. 
Goldfarb, L. A., Dykens, E. M., & Gerrard, M. (1985, June). The Goldfarb Fear of Fat 
Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 329-332. 
Graham, M. A., & Jones, A. L. (2002). Freshman 15: Valid theory or harmful myth? 
Journal of American College Health, 50(4), 171-173. 
Hargreaves, D., & Tiggemann, M. (2002). The effect of television commercials on mood 
and body dissatisfaction: The role of appearance-schema activation. Journal of 
Social and Clinical Psychology, 21, 328-349. 
Hartsoe, S. (2006). ABC news. Retrieved September 21, 2006, Web site: 
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2341308 
Harvey, J. A., & Robinson, J. D. (2003). Eating disorders in men: Current considerations. 
Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 10, 297-306. 
187 
 
Heatherton, T. F., Mahamedi, F., Striepe, M., Field, A. E., & Keel, P. K. (1997). A 10-year 
longitudinal study of body weight, dieting, and eating disorder symptoms. Journal 
of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 117-125. 
Heatherton, T. F., Nichols, P., Mahamedi, F., & Keel, P. (1995). Body weight, dieting, and 
eating disorder symptoms among college students, 1982 to 1992. American Journal 
of Psychiatry, 152, 1623-1629. 
Henriques, J., Hollway, W., Urwin, C., Venn, C., & Walkerdine, V. (1984). Changing the 
subject: Psychology, social regulation and subjectivity. London: Methuen. 
Henss, R. (1995) Waist-to-hip ratio and attractiveness replication and extension. Journal of 
Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 479-488. 
Henss, R. (2000) Waist-to-hip ratio and female attractiveness: Evidence from photographic 
stimuli and methodological considerations. Journal of Personality and Individual 
Differences, 28, 501-513. 
Hertzberg, H. T. E. (1955). Some contributions of applied physical anthropology to human 
engineering. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 63, 616-629. 
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. 
Psychological Review, 94, 319-340. 
Hoffman, D. J., Policastro, P., Quick, V., & Lee, S. (2006, July/August). Changes in body 
weight and fat mass of men and women in the first year of college: A study of the 
?Freshman 15.? Journal of American College Health, 55, 41-45. 
Jones, A. M., & Buckingham, J. T. (2005). Self-Esteem as a moderator of the effect of 
social comparison on women?s body image. Journal of Social and Clinical 
Psychology, 24, 1086-1109. 
188 
 
Jones, P., & Rioux, M. (1997). Three-dimensional surface anthropometry: Applications to 
the human body. Optics and Lasers in Engineering, 28, 89-117. 
Kalodner, C. R., & Scarano, G. M. (1992).  A continuum of nonclinical eating disorders:  A 
review of behavioral and psychological correlates and suggestions for intervention.  
Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 14(1), 30-41. 
Koslowsky, M., Scheinberg, Z., Bleich, A., Mark, M., Apter, A., Danon, Y., & Solomon, 
Z. (1992). The factor structure and criterion validity of the short form of the Eating 
Attitudes Test. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 27-35. 
Krueger, D. (1989). Body self and psychological self: Developmental and clinical 
integration in disorders of the self. New York: Brunner/Mazel. 
Lerner, R. M., & Jovanovic, J. (1990). The role of body image in psychological 
development across the life span: A developmental contextual perspective. New 
York: Guilford Press. 
Levitsky, D. A., Halbmaier, C. A., & Mrdjenovic, G. (2004). The freshman weight gain: A 
model for the study of the epidemic of obesity. International Journal of Obesity & 
Related Metabolic Disorders, 28, 1435-1442. 
Liebman, M., Cameron, B. A., & Carson, D. K. (2001). Dietary fat reduction behaviors in 
college students: Relationship to dieting status, gender, and key psychosocial 
variables. Appetite, 36, 51-56. 
Lokken, K., Ferraro, F. R., Kirchner, T., & Bowling, M. (2003). Gender differences in 
body size dissatisfaction among individuals with low, medium, or high levels of 
body focus. Journal of General Psychology, 130, 305-310. 
189 
 
Mancini, T. (2007). The freshman 15: Fighting the battle of the bulge. Retrieved October 
15, 2007, from Avoiding the freshman 15 weight gain - AOL body Web site: 
http://body.aol.com/diet/basics/freshman-15 
Marchione, M. (2006, October 23). Freshman 15 lasts longer than first year. Opelika-
Auburn News, p. 7A. 
Marks, G., Habicht, J., Mueller, W. (1989). Reliability, dependability, and precision of 
anthropometric measurements. American Journal of Epidemiology, 130(3), 578-
587. 
Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of 
Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78. 
Marsella, A., Shizuru, L., Brennan, J., & Kameoka, V. (1981). Depression and body image 
satisfaction. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 12, 360-371. 
McDougall, J. (1989). Theatres of the body. A psychoanalytic approach to psychosomatic 
illness. New York: Norton. 
McKinley, N. M. (1998). Gender differences in body esteem: The mediating effect of 
objectified body consciousness and weight discrepancy. Sex Roles, 39, 113-123. 
McKinley, N. M. (1999). Women and objectified body consciousness: Mothers? and 
daughters? body experience in cultural, developmental, and familial context. 
Developmental Psychology, 35, 760-769. 
McKinnon, L., & Istook, C. L. (2002). Body scanning: The effects of subject respiration 
and foot positioning on the data integrity of scanned measurements. Journal of 
Fashion Marketing and Management, 6(2), 103-121. 
190 
 
Meissner, W. (1997a). The self and the body: I. The body self and the body image. 
Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought, 20, 419-448. 
Meissner, W. (1997b). The self and the body: II. The embodied self?self versus non-self. 
Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought, 21, 85-111. 
Meissner, W. (1998a). The self and the body: III. The body image in clinical perspective. 
Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought, 21, 113-146. 
Meissner, W. (1998b). The self and the body: IV. The body on the couch. Psychoanalysis 
and Contemporary Thought, 21, 277-300.     
Mintz, L. B., & O'Halloran, M. S. (2000). The Eating Attitudes Test: Validation with 
DSM-IV eating disorder criteria. Journal of Personality Assessment, 74, 489-503. 
Mokdad, A. H., Ford, E. S., Bowman, B. A., Dietz, W. H., Vinicor, F., Bales, V. S., & 
Marks, J. S. (2003). Prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and obesity-related health risk 
factors, 2001. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 76-79. 
Newell, R. J. (2000). Body image and disfigurement care. London: Routledge. 
O'Donnell, L. (2006, September 10). Students can avoid dreaded freshman 15. Opelika-
Auburn News, p. 6D 
Olivardia, R., Pope, H. G., Borowiecki, J. J., & Cohane, G. H. (2004). Biceps and body 
image: The relationship between muscularity and self-esteem, depression, and 
eating disorder symptoms. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 5, 112-120. 
Orbach, S. (1978). Fat is a feminist issue. London: Arrow Books. 
Orbach, S. (1988). Fat is a feminist issue, 2
nd 
edn. London: Arrow Books. 
Oz, D. (2006). The dorm room diet: The 8-step program for creating a healthy lifestyle 
plan that really works. New York, NY: Newmarket Press. 
191 
 
Paxton, S. J., Schutz, H. K., Wertheim, E. H., & Muir, S. L. (1999). Friendship clique and 
peer influences on body image concerns, dietary restraint, extreme weight loss 
behaviors, and binge eating in adolescent girls. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 
108(2), 255-266. 
Pope, Jr., H. G., Phillips, K. A., & Olivardia, R. (2000). The Adonis complex: The secret 
crisis of male body obsession. New York: Free Press. 
Rand, C. S. W., & Resnick, J. L. (2000). The ?Good Enough? body size as judged by 
people of varying age and weight. Obesity Research, 8(4), 309-316. 
Rieves, L. C., & Cash, T. F. (1996). Social developmental factors and women's body-image 
attitudes. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 63-78. 
Rieves, L. C., & Cash, T. F. (1999). Do you see what I see?: A study of actual and 
perceived physical appearance attitudes in romantic relationships. Unpublished 
manuscript. Available from Jessica L. Gokee, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, 
Virginia. 
Ritter, M. (2006, January, 12). The freshman 15 ? it?s really the freshman 5. Guelph, 
Retrieved March 15, 2007, from 
http://www.uoguelph.ca/research/news/articles/2006/January/freshman_five.shtml 
Rodin, J., Silberstein, L. R., & Streigel-Moore, R. H. (1985). Women and weight: A 
normative discontent. Psychology and Gender, 32, 267-307. In T. B. Sonderegger 
(Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 
Roe, R. W. (1995). Occupant packaging. In J. B. Peacock & W. Karwoski (Eds.), 
Automotive ergonomics ? Human factors in the design and use of automobiles, 
Taylor & Francis, London: 11-42. 
192 
 
Roebuck, J. A., Kroemer, K. H. E., & Thomson, W. G. (1975). Engineering anthropometry 
methods, Wiley: New York, NY. 
Rosen, M. C., Orosan-Weine, P., & Tang, T. (1997). Critical experiences in the 
development of body image. Eating Disorders: The Journal of Prevention and 
Treatment, 5, 191-204. 
Rosen, J. C., Srebnik, D., Saltzberg, E., & Wendt, S. (1991). Development of a body image 
questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 3, 32-37. 
Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. E. (1988). Body image, attitudes to weight and misperceptions of 
figure preferences of the opposite sex: A comparison of men and women in two 
generations. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 342-345. 
Rozin, P., Trachtenburg, S., & Cohen, A. B. (2001). Stability of body image and body 
image dissatisfaction in American college students over about the last 15 years. 
Appetite, 37, 245-248. 
Rumsey, N., & Harcourt, D. (2004). Body image and disfigurement: Issues and 
interventions. Body Image, 1, 83-97. 
Sanders, M. S., & Shaw, B. E. (1985). ?US truck driver anthropometric and truck driver 
work space data survey: sample selection and methodology.? SAE Technical Paper 
presented to the Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA. 
Schilder, P. (1935/1950). The image and appearance of the human body. New York: 
International Universities Press. 
Secord, P. F., & Jourard, S. M. (1953). The appraisal of body-cathexis: Body-cathexis and 
the self. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 17, 343-347. 
193 
 
Silberstein, L. R., Striegel-Moore, R. H., Timko, C., & Rodin, J. (1988). Behavioral and 
psychological implications of body dissatisfaction: Do men and women differ? Sex 
Roles, 19, 219-232.  
Simmons, K. P., & Istook, C. L. (2003). Body measurement techniques: Comparing 3D 
body-scanning and anthropometric methods for apparel applications. Journal of 
Fashion Marketing and Management, 7(3), 306-332. 
Simmons, K. P., Istook, C. L., & Devarajan, P. (2004a, Summer). Female Figure 
Identification Technique (FFIT) for apparel part I: Describing female shapes. 
Journal of Textile and Apparel, Technology and Management, 4(1), 1-16. 
Simmons, K. P., Istook, C. L., & Devarajan, P. (2004b, Summer). Female Figure 
Identification Technique (FFIT) for apparel part II: Development of shape sorting 
software. Journal of Textile and Apparel, Technology and Management, 4(1), 1-15. 
Singer, N. (2006, August 31). 15 pounds: Part of freshman meal plan?. The New York 
Times. 
Singh, D. (1993a). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-
to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293-307. 
Singh, D. (1993b). Body shape and women?s attractiveness: The critical role of waist-to-
hip ratio. Human Nature, 4, 297-321. 
Singh, D. (1994a). Body fat distribution and perception of desirable female body shape by 
young Black men and women. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 16, 289-
294. 
Singh, D. (1994b). Ideal female body shape: Role of body weight and waist-to-hip ratio. 
International Journal of Eating Disorders, 16, 283-288. 
194 
 
Singh, D. (1994c). Is thin really beautiful and good? Relationship between waist-to-hip 
ratio (WHR) and female attractiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 
123-132. 
Singh, D., & Luis, S. (1995). Ethnic and gender consensus for the effect of waist-to-hip 
ratio on judgment of women?s attractiveness. Human Nature, 6, 51-65. 
Singh, D., & Young, R. K. (1995). Body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, breasts, and hips: Role 
in judgments of female attractiveness and desirability for relationships. Ethology 
and Sociobiology, 16, 483-507. 
Size UK. (2008). Welcome to the UK National Sizing Survey. Retrieved March 17, 2008, 
from Size UK Web site: http://www.sizeuk.org/ 
Smith, M. C., & Thelen, M. H. (1984). Development and validation for a Test of Bulimia. 
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52(5), 863-872. 
Smith, D. E., Thompson, J. K., & Raczynski, J. M. (1999). Body image among men and 
women in a biracial cohort: The cardia study. International Journal of Eating 
Disorders, 25, 71-82. 
Stunkard, A., Sorensen, T., Schulsinger, F. (1980). Use of the Danish Adoption Register 
for the study of obesity and thinness. In S. S. Kety, L. P. Rowland, R. L. Sidman, & 
S. W. Matthysse (Eds.), Genetics of Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders. New 
York: Raven, 115-120. 
Szymanski, M. L., & Cash, T. F. (1995). Body-image disturbances and self-discrepancy 
theory: Expansion of the Body-Image Ideals Questionnaire. Journal of Social and 
Clinical Psychology, 14, 134-146. 
195 
 
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, 589-605. 
Tassinary, L. G., & Hansen, K. A. (1998). A critical test of the waist-to-hip ratio hypothesis 
of female physical attractiveness. Psychological Science, 9, 150-155. 
[TC]
2
. (1999). Body scanner measurement descriptions. Unpublished internal document. 
[TC]
2
. (2004). Size USA National Sizing Data Available. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from 
[TC]
2
: Turning research into reality Web site: 
http://www.tc2.com/news/news_sizedata.html 
[TC]
2
. (2008a). 3D body scanner and 3D software. Retrieved March 16, 2008, from [TC]
2
: 
Turning Research into Reality Web site: 
http://www.tc2.com/what/bodyscan/index.html 
[TC]
2
. (2008b). Size USA. Retrieved March 16, 2008, from [TC]
2
: Turning Research into 
Reality Web site: http://www.tc2.com/what/sizeusa/index.html 
Thelen, M. H., Farmer, J., Wonderlich, S., & Smith, M. C. (1991). A revision of the 
Bulimia Test: The BULIT-R. Psychological Assessment, 3, 119-124. 
Thompson, J. K. (1990). Body image disturbance: Assessment and treatment. Elmsford, 
NY: Pergamon. 
Thompson, J. K., Altabe, M., Johnson, S., & Stormer, S. M. (1994). Factor analysis of 
multiple measures of body image disturbance: Are we all measuring the same 
construct? International Journal of Eating Disorders, 16, 311-315. 
196 
 
Thompson, J. K., Heinburg, L. J., Altabe, M., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (1999). Exacting 
beauty: Theory, assessment, and treatment of body disturbance. Washington DC: 
American Psychological Association. 
Tiggemann, M., & Lynch, J. E. (2001). Body image across the lifespan in adult women: 
The role of self-objectification. Developmental Psychology, 37, 243-253. 
Tov?e, M. J., & Cornelissen, P. L. (2001). Female and male perceptions of female physical 
attractiveness in front-view and profile. British Journal of Psychology, 92(2), 391-
403. 
Traub, A. C., & Orbach, J. (1964). Psychophysical studies of body-image:  The adjustable 
body-distorting mirror. Archives of General Psychiatry, 11, 53-66.  
Trust for America's Health Reports, (2006, August 29). Alabama Ranks 2nd Heaviest in the 
Country, According to a New Report That Finds America's Obesity Epidemic Is 
Getting Worse. Retrieved June 10, 2007, Web site: 
http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2006/release.php?StateID=AL 
Trust for America's Health Reports, (2006). F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies are Failing 
in America, 2006. Retrieved June 19, 2007, Web site: 
http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2006/ 
Waehner, P. (2007). Exercise. Retrieved August 29, 2007, from 5 ways to get fat in 
college: Avoiding the freshman 15 Web site: 
http://exercise.about.com/cs/exercisehealth/a/freshman15.htm 
Wardle, T. A., Haase, A. M., & Steptoe, A. (2004). Gender difference in food choice: The 
contribution of health beliefs and dieting. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 27, 107-
116. 
197 
 
Wells, J., Treleaven, P., & Cole, T. (2007). BMI compared with 3-dimensional body shape: 
The UK National Sizing Survey. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 85, 419-
425. 
Williamson, D. A., Muller, S. L., Reas, D. L., & Thaw, J. M. (1999). Cognitive bias in 
eating disorders: Implications for theory and treatment. Behavior Modification, 
23(4), 556-577. 
Yates, A., Edman, J. L., & Aruguete, M. S. (2004). Ethnic differences in BMI and 
body/self dissatisfaction among Caucasians, Pacific Islanders and African 
Americans. Journal of Adolescent Health, 34, 300-307. 
 
198 
 
APPENDIX A 
ANNOUNCEMENT TO RECRUIT STUDENTS 
 
                                                        199 
 
Body Composition and Shape in College 
Freshman Research Study 
Be part of an important body measurement study 
Exploring the ?Freshman 15? 
 
Are you an entering freshman? 
 
Are you interested in knowing your body 
weight, shape and body fat? 
 
If you answered YES to these questions, you may be eligible to 
participate in the body measurement study mentioned above. 
 
The purpose of this research study is to determine the body 
composition and shape of college freshman during the freshman 
year. Benefits include interacting with state of the art technology in 
body measurements. Participants will also receive monetary 
compensation for participation. 
 
Entering college freshman are eligible. 
 
This study is being conducted by researchers from the College of 
Human Sciences Nutrition and Food Science and Consumer Affairs 
Departments. 
 
Please contact Drs. Gropper or Connell with the Departments of 
Nutrition and Food Science and Consumer Affairs at 844-4261 or 
email gropps@auburn.edu or connelj@auburn.edu.  
 
200 
 
APPENDIX B 
INFORMED CONSENT LETTER ? PARENTAL AND STUDENT FORM 
 
201 
 
INFORMED CONSENT FOR A RESEARCH STUDY ENTITLED, 
?Longitudinal Study of Changes in Body Composition and Shape in College Students? 
 
You may be aware that as a population, the US is currently experiencing an epidemic 
related to weight.  There is some evidence that when students move to a college setting, 
they gain weight although some students lose weight. Your student is being invited to 
participate in a study at Auburn University to help researchers understand the potential 
for weight gain among college students during their freshmen year.  This study is being 
conducted by Drs. Lenda Jo Connell and Sareen Gropper of the College of Human 
Sciences.  We explore the potential for weight gain by taking body measurements using 
traditional measures and a new technology involving a 3D body scanner.  Your son or 
daughter was selected to participate because they are an entering freshman attending 
Auburn University. 
 
If your son or daughter decides to participate, we will take body measurements using a 
standard scale and the 3D body scanner. Your son or daughter will be asked to enter a 
private dressing room where they will put on standard clothing for body scanning which 
consists of bicycle shorts for males and or a sport bra and bicycle shorts for females.  The 
scans are done with a non-invasive white light and will be conducted in a private area 
with a trained technician.  The software projects only a data image and subjects are not 
identifiable.  Please see the attached example of a body scan. 
 
Body fat and body composition will be measured using bio-electrical impedance (BIA). 
For BIA, students will be asked to lie down on a towel on the floor. Two self-adhesive 
disposable electrodes will be placed on their right hand and two on their right foot.  A 
safe, battery generated electrical signal will pass through the electrodes enabling the 
calculation of body fat.  They will feel no discomfort, however, freshmen who have a 
pace-maker or an implantable electronic device can not participate. 
 
In addition to the body scanning, we will ask your son or daughter to fill out a 
questionnaire about their eating habits and about their feelings about their body image 
and lifestyle factors which may impact body weight.  This process will take 
approximately 30-45 minutes. They will need to participate in three measurement and 
questionnaire sessions.  The first session will be held during  
   ______________  _______________ 
   Parent/Guardian?s Initials Participant?s Initials 
   (if participant is under 19 years)  
     
        p. 1of 2
                                                                                          HUMAN SUBJECTS 
                                                                                          OFFICE OF RESEARCH 
                                                                                          PROJECT #06-137 EP 0608 
                                                                                          APPROVED8-17-06 TO 8-16-08 
 
 
202 
 
the first two weeks of the fall semester.  The second session will be conducted 
during the last two weeks of the fall semester. And a third will be conducted in late April.  
They will receive a total of $75.00 ($25.00 after each session) as 
incentive to participate.  Analysis of data from the three body measurement sessions and 
questionnaires should enable us to better understand any changes in body size and 
students? feelings regarding their weight during their first year in college.   
 
Any information obtained in connection with this study will remain anonymous.  Only 
researchers will have access to the data, which will be identified by numbers, not names. 
Data will be stored in a secure site and your student will only be identified by number.  
Information collected through their participation may be used to fulfill educational 
requirements, published in a professional journal, and/or presented at a professional 
meeting.  If so, none of their identifiable information will be used.  
 
Your son or daughter may withdraw from participation at any time, without penalty, and 
you may withdraw any data which has been collected about them that is confidential.  
Your decision to allow your son or daughter to participate or not to participate will not 
jeopardize your future relations with Auburn University or the Departments of Consumer 
Affairs and Nutrition and Food Science. 
 
If you have any questions, you may contact us at (334) 844-3789 and we will be happy to 
answer them.  Your son or daughter will be provided a copy of this form to keep.  
 
For more information regarding your son or daughter?s rights as a research participant, 
you may contact the Auburn University Office of Human Subjects Research or the 
Institutional Review Board by phone (334) 844-5966 or e-mail at hsubjec@auburn.edu or 
IRBChair@auburn.edu. 
 
HAVING READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, YOU AND YOUR SONS OR 
DAUGHTER MUST DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WILL PARTICIPATE IN 
THIS RESEARCH STUDY.  YOUR SIGNATURE INDICATES YOUR WILLINGNESS 
FOR YOUR SON OR DAUGHTER TO PARTICIPATE.  THEY MUST ALSO 
INDICATED THEIR WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE. 
 
___________________________  __________________________ 
Parent/Guardian signature Date   Participant?s signature  Date 
____________________________  _______________________ 
Print Name     Print Name 
____________________________             
Investigator Obtaining Date   
Consent        Pg, 2 of 2 
                                                                                          HUMAN SUBJECTS 
                                                                                          OFFICE OF RESEARCH 
                                                                                          PROJECT #06-137 EP 0608 
                                                                                          APPROVED8-17-06 TO 8-16-08 
 
Example of 3D Body Scan 
 
 
    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
203 
 
204 
 
INFORMED CONSENT FOR A RESEARCH STUDY ENTITLED,  
?Longitudinal Study of Changes in Body Composition and Shape in College Students? 
 
You may be aware that as a population, the US is currently experiencing an epidemic related 
to weight.  There is some evidence that when students move to a college setting, they gain 
weight although some students lose weight. You are being invited to participate in a study at 
Auburn University to help researchers understand the potential for weight gain among 
college students during their freshmen year.  This study is being conducted by Drs. Lenda Jo 
Connell and Sareen Gropper of the College of Human Sciences.  We explore the potential for 
weight gain by taking body measurements using traditional measures and a new technology 
involving a 3D body scanner.  You were selected to participate because you are an entering 
freshman attending Auburn University. 
 
If you decide to participate, we will take body measurements using a standard scale and the 
3D body scanner. You will be asked to enter a private dressing room where you will put on 
standard clothing for body scanning which consists of bicycle shorts for males and or a sport 
bra and bicycle shorts for females.  The scans are done with a non-invasive white light and 
will be conducted in a private area with a trained technician.  The software projects only a 
data image and subjects are not identifiable.  Please see the attached example of a body scan. 
 
Body fat and body composition will be measured using bio-electrical impedance (BIA). For 
BIA, you will be asked to lie down on a towel on the floor. Two self-adhesive disposable 
electrodes will be placed on your right hand and two on your right foot.  A safe, battery 
generated electrical signal will pass through the electrodes enabling the calculation of body 
fat.  You will feel no discomfort, however, you may not apply if you have a pace-maker or an 
implantable electronic device.  
 
In addition to the body scanning, we will ask you to fill out a questionnaire about your eating 
habits and about your feelings about your body image and lifestyle factors which may impact 
body weight.  This process will take approximately 30-45 minutes. You will need to 
participate in three measurement and questionnaire sessions.  The first session will be held 
during  
   ______________  _______________ 
   Parent/Guardian?s Initials Participant?s Initials 
   (if participant is under 19 years)  
     
        Pg. 1of 2
                                                                                          HUMAN SUBJECTS 
                                                                                          OFFICE OF RESEARCH 
                                                                                          PROJECT #06-137 EP 0608 
                                                                                          APPROVED8-17-06 TO 8-16-08 
 
 
 
 
 
205 
 
the first two weeks of the fall semester.  The second session will be conducted during the last 
two weeks of the fall semester. And a third will be conducted in late April.  You will receive 
a total of $75.00 ($25.00 after each session) as 
an incentive to participate.  Analysis of data will be analyzed as a group and from the three 
body measurement sessions and questionnaires we should better understand any changes in 
body size and students? feelings regarding their weight during their first year in college.   
 
Any information obtained in connection with this study will remain anonymous.  Only 
researchers will have access to the data, which will be identified by numbers, not names. 
Data will be stored in a secure site and you will only be identified by number.  Information 
collected through your participation may be used to fulfill educational requirements, 
published in a professional journal, and/or presented at a professional meeting.  If so, none of 
your identifiable information will be used.  
 
You may withdraw from participation at any time, without penalty, and you may withdraw 
any data which has been collected about yourself that is confidential.  Your decision to 
participate or not to participate will not jeopardize your future relations with Auburn 
University or the Departments of Consumer Affairs and Nutrition and Food Science. 
 
If you have any questions, you may contact us at (334) 844-3789 and we will be happy to 
answer them.  You will be provided a copy of this form to keep.  
 
For more information regarding you rights as a research participant, you may contact the 
Auburn University Office of Human Subjects Research or the Institutional Review Board by 
phone (334) 844-5966 or e-mail at hsubjec@auburn.edu or IRBChair@auburn.edu. 
 
HAVING READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, YOU MUST DECIDE 
WHETHER OR NOT YOU WILL PARTICIPATE IN THIS RESEARCH STUDY.  
YOUR SIGNATURE INDICATES YOUR WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE.   
 
___________________________________ 
Participant?s signature  Date 
_______________________ 
  Print Name 
____________________________              
Investigator Obtaining Date   
Consent      
 
 
 
 
        Pg. 2of 2
                                                                                          HUMAN SUBJECTS 
                                                                                          OFFICE OF RESEARCH 
                                                                                          PROJECT #06-137 EP 0608 
                                                                                          APPROVED8-17-06 TO 8-16-08 
 
Example of 3D Body Scan 
 
 
    
 
206 
 
207 
 
APPENDIX C 
 
QUESTIONNAIRES 
 
208 
 
Study of Changes in Body Image and Shape among College Students 
Beginning of first semester 
 
 
 
Name (full)     ___________________________________________________ 
   First   Midle   Last 
 
 
Address ___________________________________________________ 
   
 
  ___________________________________________________ 
 
 
Email address___________________________________________________ 
 
 
Phone (home) ___________________________________________________ 
 
 
(cell) _______________________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
For department use only 
 
Code_________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
209 
 
Study of Changes in Body Image and Shape among College Students 
Demographic Information 
 
What is your Date of Birth? (give month/day/year) ___________________________ 
 
What is your Race? 
 
___Caucasian___African American/Black____Asian___Hispanic___Other 
 
What is your gender? ___Male___Female 
 
Where is your Permanent Residence? (give city, state) ________________________ 
 
What is your place of residence during the academic school year? 
 ___Apartment___On-campus Residence Hall___House or The Commons 
 
 ___Fraternity house___With parents___Other 
 
Do you smoke cigars, cigarettes or a pipe? ___yes___no 
 
 If yes, which one(s) do you smoke? ________________ 
 
 If yes, during the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke? _____days 
 
 If yes, how many years have you smoked? ____________years 
 
 If yes, how many cigarettes, cigars or pipes do you smoke per day? _______ 
 
During the past 30 days, on how many days did you drink one or more drinks of an             
alcoholic beverage? ______________ 
 
On the days that you drank during the past 30 days, how many drinks did you usually 
have? ___________ 
 
During the past 30 days, on how many days did you have 5 or more drinks on the same 
occasion? _____________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
210 
 
What is your family?s yearly household income? 
 
_____ <$10,000/year  _____ $70,000 to 90,000 
 
_____ $10,000 to 30,000 _____ $90,000 to 110,000 
 
_____$30,000 to 50,000 _____$110,000 to 130,000 
 
_____$50,000 to 70,000 _____ $130,000 to 150,000 
 
_____ more than $150,000 _____ don?t know 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
211 
 
Appearance Schemas Inventory-Revised (ASI-R) 
Questionnaire 
 
For ordering information and permitted use go to: www.body-
images.com/assessments/asi.html 
Distribution for use by others, modification of the ASI-R items, and any commercial use 
of the materials (other than use in research or clinical practice) is prohibited by the 
author, Thomas F. Cash.  
 
Body Image 
Circle the number that most describes your feelings about the question being asked. 
 
1. I spend little time on my physical appearance. 
 
1  2  3  4  5 
  Strongly  Mostly     Neither     Mostly                Strongly  
  Disagree  Disagree    Agree      Agree    Agree 
       Or Disagre 
 
      2. When I see good-looking people, I wonder about how my own looks measure up. 
 
  1  2  3  4  5 
Strongly   Mostly     Neither     Mostly                Strongly  
 Disagree   Disagree        Agree      Agree    Agree 
       Or Disagre 
 
      3.  I try to be as physically attractive as I can be. 
 
1  2  3  4  5 
  Strongly  Mostly     Neither     Mostly                Strongly  
  Disagree  Disagree    Agree      Agree    Agree 
       Or Disagre 
   
     4.  I have never paid much attention to what I look like. 
 
  1  2  3  4  5 
  Strongly  Mostly     Neither     Mostly                Strongly  
  Disagree  Disagree    Agree      Agree    Agree 
   
     5.  I seldom compare my appearance to that of other people I see. 
 
  1  2  3  4  5 
  Strongly  Mostly     Neither     Mostly                Strongly  
  Disagree  Disagree    Agree      Agree    Agree 
 
 
 
 
212 
 
 
     6.  I often check my appearance in a mirror just to make sure I look okay. 
 
  1  2  3  4  5 
  Strongly  Mostly     Neither     Mostly                Strongly  
  Disagree  Disagree    Agree      Agree    Agree 
 
     7.  When something makes me feel good or bad about my looks, I tend to dwell on it. 
 
  1  2  3  4  5 
  Strongly  Mostly     Neither     Mostly                Strongly  
  Disagree  Disagree    Agree      Agree    Agree 
 
     8.  If I like how I look on a given day, it?s easy to feel happy about other things. 
 
  1  2  3  4  5 
  Strongly  Mostly     Neither     Mostly                Strongly  
  Disagree  Disagree    Agree      Agree    Agree 
 
     9.  If somebody had a negative reaction to what I look like, it wouldn?t bother me. 
 
  1  2  3  4  5 
  Strongly  Mostly     Neither     Mostly                Strongly  
  Disagree  Disagree    Agree      Agree    Agree 
 
     10. When it comes to my physical appearance, I have high standards. 
 
  1  2  3  4  5 
  Strongly  Mostly     Neither     Mostly                Strongly  
  Disagree  Disagree    Agree      Agree    Agree 
 
     11.  My physical appearance has had little influence on my life. 
 
  1  2  3  4  5 
  Strongly  Mostly     Neither     Mostly                Strongly  
  Disagree  Disagree    Agree      Agree    Agree 
 
     12.  Dressing well is not a priority for me. 
 
  1  2  3  4  5 
  Strongly  Mostly     Neither     Mostly                Strongly  
  Disagree  Disagree    Agree      Agree    Agree 
 
     13.  When I meet people for the first time, I wonder what they think about how I look. 
   
  1  2  3  4  5 
  Strongly  Mostly     Neither     Mostly                Strongly  
  Disagree  Disagree    Agree      Agree    Agree 
 
 
213 
 
 
     14.  In my everyday life, lots of things happen that make me think about what I look                        
  like. 
 
  1  2  3  4  5 
  Strongly  Mostly     Neither     Mostly                Strongly  
  Disagree  Disagree    Agree      Agree    Agree 
 
     15.  If I dislike how I look on a given day, it?s hard to feel happy about other things. 
 
  1  2  3  4  5 
  Strongly  Mostly     Neither     Mostly                Strongly  
  Disagree  Disagree    Agree      Agree    Agree 
 
     16. I fantasize about what it would be like to be better looking than I am. 
 
  1  2  3  4  5 
  Strongly  Mostly     Neither     Mostly                Strongly  
  Disagree  Disagree    Agree      Agree    Agree 
 
     17.  Before going out, I make sure that I look as good as I possibly can. 
 
  1  2  3  4  5 
  Strongly  Mostly     Neither     Mostly                Strongly  
  Disagree  Disagree    Agree      Agree    Agree 
 
     18.  What I look like is an important part of who I am. 
 
  1  2  3  4  5 
  Strongly  Mostly     Neither     Mostly                Strongly  
  Disagree  Disagree    Agree      Agree    Agree 
 
     19.  By controlling my appearance, I can control many of the social and emotional           
   events in my life. 
 
  1  2  3  4  5 
  Strongly  Mostly     Neither     Mostly                Strongly  
  Disagree  Disagree    Agree      Agree    Agree 
 
     20.  My appearance is responsible for much of what?s happened to me in my life. 
 
1  2  3  4  5 
  Strongly  Mostly     Neither     Mostly                Strongly  
  Disagree  Disagree    Agree      Agree    Agree 
 
 
 
 
214 
 
 
Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire 
Subscale: Body Areas Satisfaction Scale (BASS) 
 
For ordering information and permitted use go to: www.body-
images.com/assessments/mbsrq.html 
Distribution for use by others, modification of the BASS items, and any commercial use of 
the materials (other than use in research or clinical practice) is prohibited by the author, 
Thomas F. Cash.  
 
Body Satisfaction 
Use this 1 to 5 scale to indicate how dissatisfied or satisfied you are with each of the 
following areas or aspects of your body: 
 
      1.  Face (facial features, complexion) 
 
  1  2  3  4  5 
  Very  Mostly  Neither    Mostly    Strongly 
  Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied     Satisfied   Satisfied 
      Nor 
      Disatisfed 
      2.  Hair (color, thickness, texture) 
 
  1  2  3  4  5 
  Very  Mostly  Neither    Mostly    Strongly 
  Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied     Satisfied   Satisfied 
      Nor 
      Disatisfed 
       
      3.  Lower torso (buttocks, hips, thighs, legs) 
 
  1  2  3  4  5 
  Very  Mostly  Neither    Mostly    Strongly 
  Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied     Satisfied   Satisfied 
      Nor 
      Disatisfed 
     4.  Mid torso (waist, stomach)  
 
  1  2  3  4  5 
  Very  Mostly  Neither    Mostly    Strongly 
  Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied     Satisfied   Satisfied 
      Nor 
      Disatisfed 
 
 
 
215 
 
 
5.  Upper torso (chest or breasts, shoulders, arms) 
 
  1  2  3  4  5 
  Very  Mostly  Neither    Mostly    Strongly 
  Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied     Satisfied   Satisfied 
      Nor 
      Disatisfed 
6.  Muscle tone 
 
1  2  3  4  5 
  Very  Mostly  Neither    Mostly    Strongly 
  Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied     Satisfied   Satisfied 
      Nor 
      Disatisfed 
 
7.  Weight 
 
1  2  3  4  5 
  Very  Mostly  Neither    Mostly    Strongly 
  Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied     Satisfied   Satisfied 
      Nor 
      Disatisfed 
 
8.  Height 
 
1  2  3  4  5 
  Very  Mostly  Neither    Mostly    Strongly 
  Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied     Satisfied   Satisfied 
      Nor 
      Disatisfed 
 
9. Overall appearance 
 
1  2  3  4  5 
  Very  Mostly  Neither    Mostly    Strongly 
  Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied     Satisfied   Satisfied 
      Nor 
      Disatisfed