See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/255603784

Meta-Analyses of the Effects of Media Images on Men's Body-image Concerns

Article in Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology · March 2008

DOI: 10.1521/jscp.2008.27.3.279

CITATIONS READS
398 13,350

3 authors:

Christopher Barlett Christopher L. Vowels

Gettysburg College U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
79 PUBLICATIONS 3,772 CITATIONS 16 PUBLICATIONS 525 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Donald A Saucier
Kansas State University
133 PUBLICATIONS 3,817 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Donald A Saucier on 02 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2008, pp. 279–310
META–ANALYSES
BARLETT ET AL. OF MALE BODY IMAGE

META–ANALYSES OF THE EFFECTS OF MEDIA

IMAGES ON MEN’S BODY–IMAGE CONCERNS
CHRISTOPHER P. BARLETT
Iowa State University

CHRISTOPHER L. VOWELS AND DONALD A. SAUCIER

Kansas State University

Two meta–analyses were conducted to determine the extent to which pressure

from the mass media to conform to the muscular “ideal” male body affects men’s
self–images (i.e., body satisfaction, body esteem, and self–esteem). A total of 25
studies contributing 93 effect sizes were included in two meta–analyses, which re-
vealed that pressure from the mass media was significantly related to men feeling
worse about their own bodies. The effect size from the meta–analysis of the
correlational studies (Study 1) was significantly negative, d = –0.19, p < .001. The
effect size from the meta–analysis of the experimental studies (Study 2) was also
significantly negative, d = –0.22, p < .0001. Results from both Study 1 and Study 2
suggest that as men felt pressure from the mass media (in correlational and experi-
mental designs) they felt worse about their bodies. Results showed that pressure
from the mass media was related to body satisfaction, body esteem, self–esteem,
psychological disorders (e.g., depression), and behavioral outcomes (e.g.,
excessive exercising).

“It’s [a muscular ad] so obviously aimed at the American culture. The Ameri-
can way of thinking—Everything BIG.”
(Elliot & Elliot, 2005, p. 13)

Contemporary American culture heavily emphasizes the human

body and its appearance. The mass media often uses sexual images
and scantily clad models to sell their products. For example, beer
commercials use barely dressed women to sell their beer, while gym
equipment commercials sell their products by displaying muscular

Address correspondence to Christopher P. Barlett, Department of Psychology, W112

Lagomarcino Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-3180; E–mail: cpb6666@ iastate.edu.

279 279
280 BARLETT ET AL.

and shirtless men using pieces of that machinery (Harris, Cady, &
Barlett, 2007). Overall, these types of commercials attempt to per-
suade the male viewer that if he uses certain gym equipment then his
body will look like that of the man in the commercial, even though
those particular images, as well as others, are practically unattain-
able (Turkel, 1998). The phenomenon of using scantily clad female
models or muscular shirtless male models to sell products is not re-
stricted to television ads, as cover models of certain magazines and
many celebrities are either unrealistically skinny or muscular. The
body types of such male and female models are known as the ideal
body images. For women, the ideal body image is that of a skinny
woman, while for men, the ideal body image consists of a muscular
man (Furnham, Badmin, & Sneade, 2002), that is “characterized by
well–developed chest and arm muscles, with wide shoulders taper-
ing down to a narrow waist" (p. 30), such as Jean–Claude van
Damme, Sylvester Stallone (Pope, Phillips, & Olivardia, 2000), or
Brad Pitt in Troy. Research has shown that male participants do think
that muscular images are more ideal than skinnier body images
(Salusso–Deonier, Markee, & Pedersen, 1993).

NEGATIVE SELF–IMAGES
Many individuals have concerns about how their bodies look. These
concerns are related to negative self–images, which are related to un-
healthy behaviors such as excessive amounts of exercising and an in-
creased probability to develop a negative self–image (e.g.,
Ricciardelli & McCabe, 2004). Negative self–images are defined as “a
way of thinking and feeling about one’s body that negatively influ-
ences the person’s self–esteem, body esteem, and body satisfaction”
(Barlett, Harris, Smith, & Bonds–Raacke, 2005, p. 877). This defini-
tion incorporates the three constructs that have been shown to be sig-
nificantly related to negative self–images. The first is self–esteem,
defined as an overall evaluation of the self (Rosenberg, 1965). The
second is body satisfaction, defined as how one thinks about his/her
body (see Baranowski, Jorga, Djordjevic, Marinkovic, & Hethering-
ton, 2003). The third is body esteem, defined as how one feels about
his/her own body (Franzoi & Herzog, 1986).
Body esteem differs from body satisfaction by emphasizing the dif-
ference between thoughts and feelings, such that the former empha-
META–ANALYSES OF MALE BODY IMAGE 281

sizes feelings about their body while the latter emphasizes thoughts
about their body. Furthermore, body esteem and body satisfaction
differ from self–esteem by specifically focusing on the body. Even
though self–esteem may be affected by evaluation of the body, this
construct is more global. Research that has examined all three con-
structs has shown that body satisfaction and body esteem are signifi-
cantly correlated with self–esteem (Barlett et al., 2005). This research
also found that body esteem and body satisfaction are not correlated
with each other (Barlett et al., 2005), however this may be a function
of the measures used to assess these variables, as other research has
found a significant positive relationship between body satisfaction
and body esteem (Duggan & McCreary, 2004; Muris, Meesters, van
de Blom, & Mayer, 2005). For the purposes of the current meta–anal-
yses, body esteem and body satisfaction will be treated as different
constructs.

BODY IMAGE AND WOMEN

The predominant focus of the research between negative self–im-
ages and media has been on women. This research has shown that
women who were exposed to thin “ideal” media representations had
decreased self–esteem (Smith, 2000), body satisfaction (Hargreaves
& Tiggeman, 2002), and body esteem (Ogden & Mundray, 1996)
compared to those women who were not exposed to the same ideal
images. A correlational study found that the negative self–image at-
tained by viewing slender female models was significantly related to
negative behavioral factors, such as eating disorder symp-
tomatology, which was mediated by the internalization of the ideal
body shape (Stice, Schupak–Neuberg, Shaw, & Stein, 1994).
Objectification Theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) posits that
women will have a negative self–image after viewing thin female
models. This effect occurs because women are socialized to be cogni-
zant of the emphasis on the thin female body and being evaluated
based on their appearance. For example, when a woman is exposed
to a thin female model that woman may feel shame and anxiety
about not looking as similar to the model (Fredrickson & Roberts,
1997).
In order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the re-
search, Groesz, Levine, and Murnen (2002) conducted a meta–analy-
282 BARLETT ET AL.

sis to examine the effect that thin media images had on the self–im-
age of females. Their meta–analysis included 25 studies that yielded
43 effect sizes and showed a significant effect size estimate, d = –0.31,
which suggests that there is a significant relationship between view-
ing images of thin women and the development of a negative
self–image in women.

BODY IMAGE AND MEN

There has been increasing interest in the effect that ideal media im-
ages have on negative self–images in men. The present pop culture of
the United States puts heavy emphasis on muscularity for men,
which is represented in multiple ways. Leit, Gray, and Pope (2001)
measured the reported muscle size of centerfolds of Playgirl maga-
zine across three decades and found that the male models have been
steadily increasing in muscularity. Additionally, Pope, Olivardia,
Gruber, and Borowiecki (1999) showed that more modern action fig-
ures, which are often played with by boys, are growing substantially
in muscle size across the past three decades. Consequently, some,
but not all, research has shown that males who feel pressure from the
mass media have decreased self–esteem (Muris, Meesters, van de
Blom, & Mayer, 2005), decreased body satisfaction (Agliata &
Tantleff–Dunn, 2004), and decreased body esteem (Barlett et al.,
2005). Pressure from the mass media can be assessed by either show-
ing male participants stimuli consisting of muscular men or being
asked questions about how much pressure they felt from the mass
media to increase their muscles or decrease their weight. These ideal
images have been presented through multiple media formats includ-
ing magazines (Grogan, Williams, & Connor, 1996; Hausenblas, Jan-
elle, Gardner, & Hagan, 2003; Humphreys & Paxton, 2004; Grogan,
Williams, & Conner, 1996; Murnen, Smolak, Mills, & Good, 2003),
television commercials (Agliata & Tantleff–Dunn, 2004), and action
figures (Barlett et al., 2005).
Research has shown these negative feelings and thoughts that are
obtained from pressure from the mass media are significantly re-
lated to engaging in severely negative behaviors, which could lead to
later health problems or even death. These negative behaviors may
include increased steroid usage (Blovin & Goldfield, 1995), increased
food supplement intake (McCabe & Ricciardelli, 2003), and an in-
META–ANALYSES OF MALE BODY IMAGE 283

creased probability to develop an eating disorder, such as bulimia or

anorexia nervosa (Botta, 2003).
Despite the research which has shown that males will have lower
self–images after viewing muscular ideal images, some research has
shown that pressure from the mass media has not influenced every
negative self–image construct (e.g., McCabe & Ricciardelli, 2003;
Ricciardelli, McCabe, & Banfield, 2000). Barlett et al. (2005) found
that after handling extremely muscular action figures, males had de-
creased body esteem, but not self–esteem or body satisfaction.
Kalodner (1997) found that men who viewed magazine pictures of
male models did not differ from men who viewed magazine pictures
of older males (not models) on measures of body satisfaction and
body esteem. McCabe and Ricciardelli (2003) found that the pressure
from the mass media was negatively correlated with strategies to in-
crease muscles, suggesting that the number of hours spent viewing
the mass media did not make boys want to increase their muscles.
Therefore, inconsistencies regarding the reported effects of pressure
from the mass media on body image concerns in men exist in the
literature, which need to be resolved.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS
Only recently have researchers and the public become concerned
about negative self–images and their consequences on the pursuit of
muscularity and disordered eating in men. The tripartite influence
model (Shroff & Thompson, 2006; Smolak, Murnen, & Thompson,
2005) posits that three primary sociocultural influences (parents,
peers, and the mass media) directly impact body image dissatisfac-
tion, which has a direct effect on behavioral outcomes (e.g., bulimia
and steroid usage). The three sociocultural factors also have an indi-
rect link to body image dissatisfaction via two mediated processes:
internalization of societal standards and appearance comparison.
Thus, the reason why the mass media negatively influences self–im-
age is because people will often compare their own body to the image
they are viewing (appearance comparison process) or internalize the
standards of “beauty” that the stimuli represent (internalization of
societal standards). Independent of which mediated path the psy-
chological mechanisms are traveling, males who feel pressure from
the mass media to change their body or view muscular male media
284 BARLETT ET AL.

depictions will have lower body satisfaction and will compare their
own body to these depictions and feel bad about their body. The neg-
ative self–image that is manifested (either directly or through the
previously described mediated processes) will lead to behavioral
consequences of feeling bad about one’s body (e.g., steroid usage, ex-
cessive exercising). Research testing this model has shown that all
three sociocultural factors predict body image dissatisfaction in men
(e.g., Smolak et al., 2005).
The Cafri et al. model (Cafri, Thompson, Ricciardelli, McCabe,
Smolak, & Yesalis, 2005) provides similar predictions about the role
that that pressure from the mass media has on negative self–images
and the behavioral consequences associated with poor body image.
This model posits that sociocultural pressure (e.g., mass media pres-
sure) leads to a social body comparison process, in which males will
compare their body to that of the muscular image presented in the
media format. This social comparison process directly leads to body
dissatisfaction, which predicts negative behavioral consequences
(e.g., steroid usage, dieting to increase muscularity). Thus, conceptu-
ally, this model makes similar predictions to the tripartite model.
However, the Cafri et al. (2005) model differs from the tripartite
model in a variety of ways. First, the Cafri et al. (2005) model posits
that biological factors (e.g., puberty timing) directly predicts how
males will be impacted by sociocultural factors, and research has
found that males who reached puberty quickly, were more likely to
build their muscles than those males who had not yet reached pu-
berty (O’Dea & Abraham, 1999). Also, these biological factors mod-
erate the relationship between sociocultural factors and social com-
parison processes and the relationship between the social
comparison and body dissatisfaction. Thus, the age of the males is an
important variable in the relationship between sociocultural factors
and negative behavioral consequences. Second, this model predicts a
reciprocal relationship between negative behavioral consequences
and psychological functioning (e.g., self–esteem, depression). For ex-
ample, if a male begins to use steroids after feeling bad about his
body, this model predicts that this male will also have lower
self–esteem, which is going to further increase the probability of
using steroids.
Using the aforementioned theoretical frameworks and based on
the results from the primary literature, meta–analyses are needed in
META–ANALYSES OF MALE BODY IMAGE 285

order to gain an understanding of the impact that the mass media has
on the negative self–image of males. There is a need in the literature
to synthesize the research on this area across the discipline for men,
as there has been a meta–analysis on women (Groesz et al., 2002).
Meta–analyses will test links in both of the aforementioned models
by synthesizing the relevant research which specifically investigated
these links. Further, meta–analyses will synthesize what researchers
do and do not know about the predictions these theoretical models
posit by resolving any discrepancies that exist in the literature. Fi-
nally, the results from meta–analyses are useful for suggesting fu-
ture research in this area because both the overall results and the re-
sults from moderator analyses will highlight areas of research that
need further elaboration.
These goals will be accomplished by synthesizing the primary lit-
erature which has investigated the effects that the mass media has on
negative self–images and behavioral and psychological outcomes
associated with having body image concerns from the mass media.
We will examine the predictions of both the tripartite influence
model and the Cafri et al. model by meta–analyzing the correlational
(Study 1) and experimental studies (Study 2) which have examined
the relationship between pressure from the mass media and male
body image. Also, moderators predicted by these models (e.g., age of
participants, muscularity of the muscular male depictions) will be
explored when appropriate.

STUDY 1
The purpose of Study 1 was to meta–analyze the relevant literature
on the relationship(s) between media exposure and negative body
image concerns. Thus, the current study focused only on studies that
were correlational. The results from the correlational studies offer in-
sight into what variables are theoretically related to one another by
the previously stated models. It is important to only meta–analyze
the correlational studies because the results from these studies, al-
though theoretically important, only show relationships, and, hence,
causal conclusions cannot be made. The majority of the correlational
studies had males complete measures associated with either the
amount of time spent viewing the mass media or the amount of pres-
sure males felt from the mass media to alter their body (e.g., gain
286 BARLETT ET AL.

muscles, decrease weight) and correlated those responses with mea-

sures of negative self–images and behavioral and psychological
consequences (e.g., steroid usage and depression, respectively).

METHOD
PsycINFO was the database used to obtain the relevant studies. This
search was conducted over the time period between 1806 to Septem-
ber 2005 and only included published studies written in English. The
specific search terms used were: “body image and males," “body im-
age and boys," “body esteem and males," “body esteem and boys,"
“body esteem and media," “body satisfaction and males," “body satis-
faction and media," “body satisfaction and boys," “self–esteem and
males," “self–esteem and boys," “self–esteem and media and men,"
“media and body image and boys," and “muscularity."
The main purpose of the meta–analyses was to determine the rela-
tionships between exposure to muscular ideals and the negative
self–images of males. Therefore, the inclusionary criteria specified
that studies must: (1) use male participants, (2) measure at least one
of the negative self–image constructs or outcomes (e.g., depression,
eating disorders), (3) be a study that correlated the amount of pres-
sure from the mass media and self–image variables, and (4) include
enough statistical information to calculate an overall effect size for
the relationship between pressure from the mass media and negative
self–image variables for male participants. Using these criteria, 15
studies were identified for inclusion in the meta–analysis.
These studies contributed 60 effect sizes and included 4,324 male
participants. Effect sizes were extracted from each study using the
statistical information provided. The Hedges and Olkin (1985) pro-
cedure was used to calculate the effect sizes for each study using the
DSTAT computer program (Johnson, 1993). In the current study, fre-
quencies, correlation coefficients, and percentages were transformed
into effect size estimates for each dependent variable. Any studies
that reported nonsignificant findings, but failed to report informa-
tion to use for effect sizes were assigned values of p = .50. This was
done in order not to bias the overall effect size by using p = 1.00 be-
cause this would underestimate the overall effect size. This tech-
nique is also preferable to using p = 1.00 because this assumes that
META–ANALYSES OF MALE BODY IMAGE 287

there is no effect, which can influence the effect size estimates

(Rosenthal, 1995).
Study 1 meta–analyzed only the correlational studies and Study 2
meta–analyzed only the experimental literature, which is why the ef-
fect sizes were calculated using both Pearson’s r and Cohen’s d. Be-
cause both types of effect sizes were computed, the reader is able to vi-
sually compare the results from the two studies using the same effect
size estimates. Correlation coefficients were transformed to the d sta-
tistic using Cohen’s (1988) equations.1 Often, one study produced
more than one effect size. This occurred when more than one scale was
used to measure a construct of negative self–images. Often studies
would report results for two of the underlying constructs of negative
self–images (e.g., self–esteem and body satisfaction), or all three. This
produced multiple effect size estimates from one study.

CODING FOR MODERATORS

In order to examine potential moderators, the first and second au-
thors coded the studies independently. Coders rated the average age
as a continuous variable and the reliability coefficient was calculated
using the interrater correlations, with the Spearman–Brown effective
reliability correction for multiple coders, and results showed that the
rating was reliable, r = 1.00, R = 1.00.
The categorical variables that were coded for each study included
the specific dependent measures used to indicate self–image (body
satisfaction, body esteem, and self–esteem) which was coded based
on the name of the scale that was provided. Also, the type of out-
comes (psychological or behavioral) was coded based on the variable
measured in the studies. Psychological disorders were defined as
outcomes that could be classified by the DSM–IV-TR (American Psy-
chiatric Association, 2000), which included certain clinical disorders,
such as depression, anxiety, bulimia, and anorexia. Behavioral out-
comes included variables that were not specific clinical diseases in

1. Cohen’s d was used instead of Hedge’s g because Hedge’s g is not standardized for
sample sizes, and Cohen’s d uses the unbiased population effect size derived by multiply-
ing a correction formula to Hedge’s g (see Groesz et al., 2002). Inspections of the effect size
estimates revealed that the results produced using Hedge’s g were virtually identical to
those produced using Cohen’s d.
288 BARLETT ET AL.

the DSM–IV-TR, but could be possible symptoms and were physical

actions, such as number of hours exercising, strategies to increase
muscle tone, taking food supplements, strategies to decrease weight,
and strategies to increase weight.2,3 The first variables reliability for
the first variable was assessed using Cohen’s Kappa and these
codings were reliable for the dependent measure(s) in a study, κ =
1.00. The phi coefficient was used to measure the reliability between
the two coders for the type of outcome measures and these codings
were reliable (ϕ = 1.00).

RESULTS
Negative effect sizes indicate that pressure from the mass media was
related to negative self–image attainment, while positive effect sizes
indicate that pressure from the mass media was related to positive
self–image attainment. This meta–analysis included only the
correlational studies (κ = 15) in order to determine the relationship
between exposure to mass media that depicted ideal male bodies
and negative self–images. However, because these studies were
correlational, a direct causal relationship cannot be concluded.
The results from the meta–analysis showed that the overall effect
size was d = –0.19, p < .0001; CI: –0.21 to –0.17, suggesting that pres-
sure from the mass media was significantly related to negative

2. Two independent raters coded each theoretically relevant questionnaire used in each
study, which was the basis for the reliability estimates for each dependent measure used.
Then, the first author classified each questionnaire into the dependent variable that it mea-
sured (i.e., body esteem, body satisfaction, self–esteem, psychological outcomes, and be-
havioral outcomes). Recall that we operationally defined body esteem to be how one feels
about his/her own body, while body satisfaction was operationally defined as how one
thinks about his/her body. Thus, any questionnaire that assessed internalization, for ex-
ample (SATAQ; Tiggemann, 2005), was classified as body satisfaction because internaliza-
tion is related to how one processes and thinks about his/her body. Any variable assessed
via the Body Esteem Scale, for example (BES; Franzoi & Herzog, 1986), was coded as body
esteem because that measure assesses how one feels about parts of their body. This classifi-
cation was only pertinent for the distinction between body esteem and body satisfaction,
and the results showed that there was no difference in the relationship between pressure
from the mass media and body esteem and body satisfaction.
3. Strategies to increase weight could be defined as wanting to either gain weight or in-
crease weight (i.e., bulk up). Researchers have used this variable to suggest the latter; how-
ever, according to Cafri and Thompson (2004), it may be unclear to the participants which
one is meant. Therefore, results using this variable should be interpreted cautiously.
META–ANALYSES OF MALE BODY IMAGE 289

self–images. The test for heterogeneity was statistically significant,

QW(59) = 737.74, p < .0001, indicating that it is possible that modera-
tors could explain the variability among the effect sizes. Table 1 lists
all effect size estimates.
Due to the possible violation of the assumption of independence of
effect sizes, we calculated one effect size per study using a weighted
averaging procedure. The overall analysis showed effect sizes that
were comparable to the initially calculated effect size, d = –0.25, p <
.0001; CI: –0.29 to –0.20,4 which according to Cohen’s (1988) conven-
tions is a small to medium effect size.5 Furthermore, there was again
significant heterogeneity for this analysis, QB(14) = 95.87, p < .0001,
suggesting the potential presence of moderators. Overall, these re-
sults suggest that a relationship exists between pressure from the
mass media and negative self–images in males.
The file drawer problem is a common problem in meta–analyses,
and is defined as the possibility that unpublished research may exist
that would change the effect sizes from the published studies due to
their noninclusion. In order to estimate the extent of this problem
with the current meta–analysis, the fail–safe N was calculated. The
fail–safe N estimates the number of studies with null results that need
to exist in order to make the overall effect size nonsignificant (Ster-
ling, 1959). Using the Rosenthal (1991) equation, the fail–safe N for the
current meta–analysis was 300 studies. This suggests that the overall
effect is robust to the file drawer problem. However, we cannot say
with certainty that the effect would remain the same if all unpub-
lished studies were included in the main analyses, but the large
fail–safe N would suggest that the findings from the current
meta–analysis are robust to not including the unpublished work.
The current meta–analysis utilized the random effects model

4. The results suggest that the confidence intervals for the two overall statistics do not
overlap, which would suggest that these are significantly different from one another,
hence possibly violating the assumption of nonindependence. However, because the over-
all trend, direction, and interpretation of the results do not change, the significant differ-
ence between these two estimates of effect size is less consequential.
5. Researchers have often made the claim that small effect sizes are important as long as
they can be interpreted (Abelson, 1985; Prentice & Miller, 1992). Additionally, large effect
sizes are not hypothesized because the theoretical models state that other factors contrib-
ute to negative self–images beyond the mass media. Therefore, the small–obtained effect
size estimates are expected and interpretable.
 TABLE 1. Effect Size Estimates for Correlational Studies

Study d 95% CI r p Measure Avg. Age

Botta (2003) –0.17 (–0.37, 0.03) –0.08 0.09487
Body Satisfaction –0.19 (–0.40, 0.03) –0.09 0.09040 Own 18.94
Body Esteem –0.20 (–0.42, 0.02) –0.10 0.06877 DFT 18.94
Anorexia –0.15 (–0.37, 0.06) –0.07 0.16773 Own 18.94
Bulimia –0.17 (–0.38, 0.05) –0.08 0.13102 Own 18.94
Body Esteem –0.16 (–0.38, 0.06) –0.08 0.14976 Own 18.94
Duggan & McCreary (2004) –0.79 (–1.24, –0.34) –0.37 0.00024
Body Esteem –0.58 (–0.92, –0.23) –0.28 0.00114 SPAS Not specified
Body Satisfaction –0.92 (–1.27, –0.56) –0.42 0.00001 DMS Not specified
Body Satisfaction –0.63 (–0.98, –0.28) –0.30 0.00047 EAT Not specified
Body Esteem –0.45 (–0.97, 0.08) –0.22 0.10310 SPAS Not specified
Body Satisfaction –0.98 (–1.52, –0.43) –0.44 0.00070 DMS Not specified
Body Satisfaction –1.28 (–1.85, –0.72) –0.54 0.00001 EAT Not specified

290
Hatoum & Belle (2004) –0.61 (–0.91, –0.31) –0.29 0.00008
Weight Concerns –0.24 (–0.53, –0.06) –0.12 0.11264 # of diets 19.46
Body Esteem –0.84 (–1.15, –0.53) –0.39 0.00001 PAM 19.46
Body Satisfaction –0.87 (–1.17, –0.56) –0.40 .00001 DFM 19.46
Hours Exercising –0.49 (–0.79, –0.19) –0.24 0.00133 Amt/Week 19.46
Jones (2001) –0.60 (–0.80, –0.40) –0.29 0.00001 EAT Not specified
Jones, Vigfusdottir, & Lee (2004) –0.28 (–0.43, –0.13) –0.14 0.00025
Body Satisfaction –0.32 (–0.47, –0.17) –0.16 0.00002 SATAQ 12.60
Body Satisfaction –0.02 (–0.17, 0.13) –0.01 0.79287 EAT 12.60
Body Satisfaction –0.51 (–0.67, –0.36) –0.25 0.00001 SATAQ 12.60
McCabe & Riciardelli (2003) –0.23 (–0.37, –0.09) –0.11 0.00088
Body Satisfaction and Muscle Gain –0.47 (–0.61, –0.34) –0.23 0.00001 BIBCI 13.92
Decrease Weight Strategies –0.72 (–0.86, –0.58) –0.34 0.00001 BIBCI 13.92
Increase Muscles Strategies 0.65 (0.51, 0.79) 0.31 0.00001 BIBCI 13.92
Gain Weight Strategies –0.41 (–0.54, –0.27) –0.20 0.00001 BIBCI 13.92
 McCabe & Ricciardelli (2003) 0.01 (–0.19, 0.21) 0.01 0.92099
Binge Eating and Decrease Weight 0.34 (0.15, 0.54) 0.17 0.00068 BIBCI 14.02
Binge Eating and Increase Muscles –0.43 (–0.63, –0.23) –0.21 0.00003 BIBCI 14.02
Food Suppliments –0.39 (0.19, 0.58) 0.19 0.00014 BIBCI 14.02
McCabe, Ricciardelli, & Finemore (2002) –0.07 (–0.18, 0.04) –0.03 0.23148
Body Satisfaction and Exercise 0.24 (0.07, 0.41) 0.12 0.01200 BIBCI 13.22
Body Satisfaction and Weight Loss 0.34 (0.17, 0.52) 0.17 0.00009 BIBCI 13.22
Body Satisfaction and Weight Gain 0.02 (–0.15, 0.19) 0.01 0.81970 BIBCI 13.22
Body Satisfaction and Muscle Gain 0.14 (–0.03, 0.31) 0.07 0.10380 BIBCI 13.22
Body Satisfaction and Exercise –0.34 (–0.52, –0.17) 0.17 0.00010 BIBCI 13.22
Body Satisfaction and Weight Loss –0.26 (–0.43, –0.09) –0.13 0.00292 BIBCI 13.22
Body Satisfaction and Weight Gain –0.02 (–0.19, 0.15) –0.01 0.81970 BIBCI 13.22
Body Satisfaction and Muscle Gain –0.32 (–0.50, –0.15) –0.16 0.00024 BIBCI 13.22
Body Satisfaction and Exercise –0.10 (–0.25, 0.05) –0.05 0.20368 BIBCI 13.22
Body Satisfaction and Weight Loss 0.04 (–0.11, 0.19) 0.02 0.61132 BIBCI 13.22
Body Satisfaction and Weight Gain –0.02 (–0.17, 0.13) –0.01 0.79944 BIBCI 13.22

291
Body Satisfaction and Exercise –0.16 (–0.31, –0.01) –0.08 0.04177 BIBCI 13.22
Body Satisfaction and Weight Loss –0.32 (–0.48, –0.17) –0.16 0.00004 BIBCI 13.22
Body Satisfaction and Weight Gain –0.02 (–0.17, 0.13) –0.01 0.70044 BIBCI 13.22
Body Satisfaction and Muscle Gain –0.24 (–0.40, –0.09) –0.12 0.00221 BIBCI 13.22
Muris, et al. (2005) –0.69 (–0.92, –0.46) –0.33 0.00001
Body Satisfaction –0.63 (–0.85, –0.40) –0.30 0.00001 BCS 13.60
Body Esteem –0.72 (–0.95, –0.49) –0.34 0.00001 BCI 13.60
Self–esteem –0.72 (–0.95, –0.49) –0.34 0.00001 ChEAT 13.60
Murnen, et al. (2003)† –0.73 (–1.11, –0.35) –0.34 0.00019
Body Satisfaction –1.18 (–1.58, –0.79) –0.51 0.00001 SATAQ Not specified
Body Esteem –0.12 (–0.48, 0.24) –0.06 0.50821 BES Not specified
 TABLE 1. (continued)

Study d 95% CI r p Measure Avg. Age

Ricciardelli & McCabe (2003) –0.18 (–0.29, –0.07) –0.09 0.00213
Body Satisfaction Gaining Muscles –0.12 (–0.23, –0.01) –0.06 0.04000 BIBCI 13.22
Body Esteem –0.16 (–0.27, –0.05) –0.08 0.00613 BIBCI 13.22
Body Satisfaction Decrease Weight –0.54 (–0.65, –0.42) –0.26 0.00001 BIBCI 13.22
Body Satisfaction and Weight Gain 0.40 (–0.07, 0.15) 0.02 0.49396 BIBCI 13.22
Muscle Increase Strategies –0.34 (–0.46, –0.23) –0.17 0.00001 BIBCI 13.22
Decrease Weight Strategies –0.30 (–0.42, –0.19) –0.15 0.00001 BIBCI 13.22
Ricciardelli & McCabe (2001) –0.39 (–0.51, –0.27) 0.19 0.00001 BIBCI 13.22
Ricciardelli, McCabe, & Banfield (2000) 0.47 (0.03, 0.91) 0.23 0.04386 Own Not specified
Tiggemann (2005) –0.08 (–0.19, 0.03) –0.04 0.14948
Body Satisfaction –0.22 (–0.33, –0.11) –0.11 0.00007 SATAQ 14.37
Body Esteem –0.08 (–0.19, 0.03) –0.04 0.14916 ASI 14.37
Body Satisfaction –0.06 (–0.17, 0.05) –0.03 0.27939 EAT 14.37

292
Body Satisfaction 0.02 (–0.09, 0.13) 0.01 0.71848 DFM 14.37
Vartanian, Giant, & Passino (2001) –0.69 (–0.97, –0.42) –0.33 0.00000 DDFRQ 22.60
Note. Underlined values, in the table, represent the overall effect size for each study, RSE = Rosenberg Self–Esteem scale, DFM = Drive for Muscularity, PAM = Positive Atti-
tudes Toward Muscularity, SPAS = Social Physique Anxiety Scale, DMS = Drive for Muscularity Scale, EAT = Eating Attitudes Test, BCS = Body Comparison Scale, BCI =
Body Change Inventory, ChEAT = Children’s Version of the Eating Attitudes Test, BSC = Body Self–Consciousness Questionnaire, BIS = Body Image Scale, VAS = Visual Ana-
log Scale, BES = Body Esteem Scale, SATAQ = Sociocultural Attitudes Toward Appearance Questionnaire, BIBCl = Body Change Inventory, SCCS = Self–Concept Clarity
Scale, BA = Body Assessment Scale, DFT = Drive for Thinness, ASI = Appearance Schemas Inventory, DDFRQ = Dual Dimension Figure Rating Questionnaire, Own = re-
searcher created. † This study did expose male participants to pictures, however the statistics required for classification into the experimental study category (e.g., means and
standard deviations, F–test, t–test) were not provided. Rather, the statistics used to calculate effect sizes were correlation coefficients between each self–image variable (body
esteem and body satisfaction) and responses regarding how much the participants liked to look like the images in the pictures, how much they wanted to look like the images
in the pictures, and the importance of looking like the images in the pictures. Thus, because the statistical information provided are correlation coefficients, and a test of the
difference between muscular compared to non–muscular media images was not conducted, the study was coded as a correlational study, rather than an experimental study.
META–ANALYSES OF MALE BODY IMAGE 293

(Hedges, 1983; Hedges & Olkin, 1985), suggesting that moderators

could potentially influence the overall effect size estimate. Both over-
all analyses showed significant heterogeneity, which justified con-
ducting moderator analyses (Rosenthal & Rubin, 1979). Analysis of
the overall effect size calculations revealed that 8 of the 15 studies
(53% of the sample) would have been needed to be eliminated in or-
der to achieve homogeneity. See Table 2 for effect size estimates for
the levels of each moderator to assess how the relationship differs for
all studies.
Moderator analyses were conducted to examine the effect that
each variable had on the relationship between exposure to muscular
ideal images and negative self–image development in males, and to
examine specific comparisons within each moderator. First, in order
to estimate an overall difference of the impact pressure from the
mass media had on the three self–image constructs and outcome
variables, an overall effect size was calculated for each construct. For
the following moderator analyses the effect sizes were averaged for
each study. This is appropriate because using more than one effect
size within a given study may give too much weight to the results of
that study, arbitrarily inflating the sample size of the meta–analysis
which would make the error estimate less influential increasing the
probability of making a Type 1 error (Wolf, 1986). Since self–image is
a multivariate construct, it is appropriate to subgroup and combine
each unique construct, which would not inflate the sample size while
still providing the effect size estimate of the overall relationship
(Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001). In many studies, not all three con-
structs that measure body image were represented, and/or an effect
was found for one construct but not the other (e.g., body esteem, but
not body satisfaction). In order to estimate an effect size estimate for
each self–image construct while not increasing the probability of
making a Type 1 error, we averaged effect size estimates for each
construct across studies.
We synthesized the effect size estimates (and weighted it by the
sample size) for each negative self–image construct to assess the ef-
fect for each specific construct. For example, all of the effect size esti-
mates that assessed body esteem were statistically aggregated in or-
der to determine the extent to which body esteem is affected by
exposure to the ideal male image. This process was repeated for body
satisfaction and self–esteem.
294 BARLETT ET AL.

TABLE 2. Effect Size Estimates for Moderators for Correlational Studies

95% CI
Moderator Variable k d Lower Upper r
Body Image Body Esteem 11 –0.22 –0.27 –0.16 –.11
Construct Body Satisfaction 35 –0.19 –0.21 –0.16 –.10
Self–esteem 1 –0.72 –0.95 –0.49 –.002
Outcomes 12 –0.16 –0.20 –0.12 –.08
Specific Behavioral 9 –0.18 –0.23 –0.13 –.17
Outcomes Psychological 3 –0.10 –0.19 –0.01 –.01

The results consisted of significant negative effect sizes indicating

that pressure from the mass media was associated with negative ef-
fects for each of the dependent variables: body esteem, d = –0.22, κ =
11, CI: –0.27 to –0.16, r = –.11, body satisfaction, d = –0.19, κ = 35, CI:
–0.21 to –0.16, r = –.10, and outcomes, d = –0.16, κ = 12, CI: –0.20 to
–0.12, r = –.08. Self–esteem was also significantly related to exposure
to the ideal media image, d = –0.72, κ = 1, CI: –0.95 to –0.49, r = .002, al-
though this may be a function of having only one study in this
analysis.
Using the same rationale and procedures used for analysis of the
negative self–image variables, all of the effect size estimates for the
outcome variables (operationally defined as a behavioral representa-
tion of having a negative self–image) were categorized into psycho-
logical disorders or behavioral consequences and were statistically
aggregated to determine the behavioral component of muscular
male image exposure. Analyses of these effect sizes showed that
there was a negative relationship between pressure from the mass
media and behavioral outcomes, d = –0.18, κ = 9, CI: –0.23 to –0.13, r =
–.17, suggesting that behavioral outcomes are more likely for those
with higher levels of media exposure (i.e., pressure). The results from
the psychological outcomes suggest that pressure from the mass me-
dia did not influence the probability of these outcomes, as the confi-
dence interval includes zero, d = –0.10, κ = 3, CI: –0.19 to 0.01, r = –.01,
but trends in this analysis would suggest that exposure to the ideal
image are related to these outcomes.
Overall, these findings suggest that body esteem is the most af-
fected outcome variable, which provides evidence that the way
META–ANALYSES OF MALE BODY IMAGE 295

males feel about their body is related to pressure from the mass me-
dia. Further, the majority of effect sizes were negative indicating that
there is a relationship between pressure from muscular media and
negative self–images.
To determine if there is a relationship between pressure from the
mass media and negative self–images varies by participant age, a
moderator analysis was conducted. The results show that there was
a significant relationship between the mean age of the participants
and the negative self–image obtained, Z = –2.64, p < .01. The direction
of this result suggests that the college–aged participants had a stron-
ger relationship between pressure from the mass media and negative
self–images. As evidenced by the Z statistic, as the age of the partici-
pants increases, the overall d value decreases. Thus, as the partici-
pants got older, they had a higher negative relationship between
pressure from the mass media and their self–image. This result is im-
portant because this suggests that even though males may develop a
negative self–image due to mass media pressure, the relationship
becomes stronger into early adulthood.

DISCUSSION
The purpose of Study 1 was to synthesize the relevant literature on
the relationship between media pressure and negative body image
in males. Results showed an overall negative effect size estimate,
suggesting that mass media pressure is related to body image con-
cerns in male participants. Specifically, pressure from the mass me-
dia was related to more negative body esteem, body satisfaction, and
self–esteem and a greater probability of psychological and behav-
ioral outcomes associated with having a negative body image. Fi-
nally, age moderated the relationship between media pressure and
negative body image, such that there was a negative relationship be-
tween the effect size estimate and age: older participant males had a
stronger relationship between body image concerns and pressure
from the mass media.

STUDY 2
The purpose of Study 2 was to meta–analyze the relevant literature
of the experimental studies which investigated the effect that expo-
296 BARLETT ET AL.

sure to a stimulus had on the body image of male participants. One

limitation to Study 1 was that the primary literature synthesized was
correlational. Thus, a causal connection between pressure from the
mass media and negative body image cannot be made from the re-
sults of Study 1, although the results do provide an impetus for such
a relationship. Study 2 sought to make a closer approximation of a
causal relationship between exposure to muscular images and nega-
tive self–images by synthesizing only experimental studies. A typi-
cal experimental study consisted of randomly assigning males to
view either a muscular or a nonmuscular male media depiction and
then having these males complete measures associated with their
negative self–image.
The same inclusionary criteria and search terms used in Study 1,
with the exception that the literature synthesized in Study 2 had to
include the presentation of a media image of a muscular male. Using
these criteria, 10 studies were identified for inclusion in the
meta–analysis. These studies contributed 33 effect sizes and in-
cluded 755 male participants.

CODING OF MODERATORS
Identical to Study 1, the average age of the participants and the con-
struct to assess self–image were independently coded for each study
by the first and second authors, and all reliabilities were acceptable (r
= 1.00, r = 1.00 for age, κ = 1.00 for negative self–image construct mea-
sured, and ϕ = 1.00 for outcome measured). Two additional modera-
tors were coded for the purpose of Study 2. The first moderator was
the type of media format (television, magazines, action figures, or
none) used. Action figures were included as acceptable stimuli for
multiple reasons. One was to add more studies and effect size esti-
mates, hence increasing the statistical power of the results. Another
was because the majority of the public sees professional wrestlers ei-
ther on television or in magazines, and thus, action figures of these
wrestlers are just another representation of the images. Theoreti-
cally, action figures would be a sociocultural representation in both
the tripartite model and the Cafri et al. model because wrestling ac-
tion figures are often extremely muscular (Pope et al., 1999) and pro-
vide males with another stimulus for social body comparison. The
reliability of this moderator was acceptable, κ = .97.
META–ANALYSES OF MALE BODY IMAGE 297

Finally, the coders reported dichotomous codings for the muscular-

ity of the stimuli (athletically or extremely). Athletically muscular
stimuli were images of a body that was muscular, but attainable (e.g.,
Ken doll from Barlett et al., 2005), while extremely muscular images
were images of bodies that cannot be realistically attained without ste-
roid usage (e.g., the Hulk from Barlett et al., 2005). The results show
that the two coders had acceptable reliabilities, assessed using the phi
coefficient, for the muscularity of the stimuli, ϕ = .91. All discrepancies
were resolved by discussion between the two coders.

RESULTS
The results from the meta–analysis using only the experimental
studies showed that the overall effect size was d = –0.22, p < .0001; CI:
–0.30 to –0.14, suggesting that after males were exposed to muscular
ideal images, they had a higher negative self–image. The test for het-
erogeneity was nonsignificant, QW(32) = 47.58, n.s., suggesting that
the effect that the exposure to muscular ideal images has on negative
self–images may be consistent across the male population. Table 3
lists all effect size estimates. Due to the possible violation of the as-
sumption of independence of effect sizes, we calculated one effect
size per study using a weighted averaging procedure. The overall
analysis conducted showed effect sizes were, according to Cohen’s
(1988) conventions, a small to medium effect size. Furthermore, there
was again nonsignificant heterogeneity across these effect sizes,
QB(9) = 11.29, n.s., suggesting that the overall relationship was not in-
fluenced by moderators. The relationship between exposure to the
mass media and negative self–images in males is consistent across
the literature. The fail–safe N for the experimental studies was 280
studies, which indicates that this was a robust effect given the
absence of unpublished literature.
The results consisted of significant negative effect sizes indicating
that the exposure to the ideal body image was associated with nega-
tive effects for each of the dependent variables: body esteem, d =
–0.40, κ = 7, CI: –0.54 to –0.26, body satisfaction, d = –0.25, κ = 14, CI:
–0.32 to –0.17, and outcomes, d = –0.24, κ = 12, CI: –0.36 to –0.12.
Self–esteem was not significantly related to exposure to the ideal me-
dia image, d = –0.03, κ = 7, CI: –0.14 to 0.18, as the confidence interval
for the effect size estimate included zero. Examining the relationship
 TABLE 3. Effect Size Estimates for Experimental Studies

Study d 95% CI r p Measure Stimuli Avg. Age

Agliata & Tantleff–Dunn (2004) –0.26 (–0.57, 0.05) –0.13 0.10701
Body Satisfaction –0.32 (–0.63, 0.00) –0.15 0.04814 SATAQ Videos** 21.80
Depression –0.43 (–0.74, –0.12) –0.21 0.00796 VAS Videos** 21.80
Anxiety –0.02 (–0.34, 0.29) –0.17 0.88383 VAS Videos** 21.80
Barlett et al. (2005, Study 1) –0.25 (–0.83, 0.33) –0.12 0.39839
Self–esteem 0.10 (–0.48, 0.67) 0.05 0.74266 RSE AF** 18.90
Body Esteem –0.62 (–1.21, –0.04) –0.30 0.03783 MBIES AF** 18.90
Body Satisfaction –0.23 (–0.81, 0.34) –0.12 0.42841 BSQ (adjust) AF** 18.90
Barlett et al. (2005, Study 2) –0.33 (–0.79, 0.13) –0.16 0.15036
Body Esteem –0.60 (–1.14, –0.05) –0.29 0.03563 MBIES AF** 19.39
Body Satisfaction –0.15 (–0.68, 0.39) –0.07 0.59822 BSQ (adjust) AF** 19.39
Self–esteem –0.23 (–0.77, 0.30) –0.12 0.40045 RSE AF** 19.39

298
Body Esteem –0.86 (–1.41, –0.30) –0.39 0.00300 MBIES AF** 19.39
Body Satisfaction –0.06 (–0.59, 0.47) –0.03 0.82109 BSQ (adjust) AF** 19.39
Self–esteem –0.08 (–0.60, 0.45) –0.04 0.78021 RSE AF** 19.39
Barlett et al. (2005, Study 3) –0.10 (–0.63, 0.43) –0.05 0.71862
Body Esteem –0.15 (–0.68, 0.38) –0.08 0.58096 MBIES AF* 18.90
Body Satisfaction –0.37 (–0.90, 0.17) –0.18 0.18120 BSQ (adjust) AF* 18.90
Self–esteem 0.21 (–0.32, 0.74) 0.11 0.43906 RSE AF* 18.90
Grogan, Williams, & Conner (1996) –0.82 (–1.41, –0.23) –0.38 0.00744 BIS Pictures* Not specified
Hausenblas et al. (2003) –0.49 (–1.16, 0.18) –0.24 0.16529
Anxiety –0.36 (–1.09, 0.36) –0.18 0.33524 VAS Slides** 20.80
Depression –0.30 (–1.02, 0.42) –0.15 0.42862 VAS Slides** 20.80
Body Satisfaction –0.33 (–1.05, 0.39) –0.17 0.37820 VAS Slides** 20.80
Anxiety –0.26 (–0.87, 0.34) –0.13 0.40367 VAS Slides** 20.80
Depression –0.49 (–1.10, –0.12) –0.24 0.12435 VAS Slides** 20.80
Body Satisfaction –1.19 (–1.85, –0.54) –0.52 0.00044 VAS Slides** 20.80
 Humphreys & Paxton (2004) –0.09 (–0.48, 0.30) –0.04 0.65779
Body Satisfaction 0.13 (–0.25, 0.52) 0.07 0.50464 BIBCI Magazine** 15.60
Body Satisfaction 0.17 (–0.23, 0.56) 0.08 0.41075 SATAQ Magazine** 15.60
Body Satisfaction –0.01 (–0.50, 0.29) –0.05 0.60907 BCS Magazine** 15.60
Self–esteem –0.09 (–0.48, 0.31) –0.04 0.66786 RSE Magazine** 15.60
Self–esteem 0.03 (–0.36, 0.43) 0.02 0.86456 SCCS Magazine** 15.60
Depression –0.10 (–0.49, 0.29) –0.05 0.61577 VAS Magazine** 15.60
Kalodner (1997) –0.43 (–1.42, –0.18) –0.21 0.18423
Body Satisfaction –0.44 (–1.05, 0.17) –0.22 0.16817 BSC (private) Magazines* 18.97
Body Esteem –0.45 (–1.05, 0.17) –0.22 0.16817 BSC (public) Magazines* 18.97
Body Esteem –0.41 (–1.02, 0.21) –0.20 0.20020 BSC (self) Magazines* 18.97
Leit, Gray, & Pope (2001) –0.55 (–0.99, –0.11) –0.26 0.01637 SM Slides** 19.80
Lorenzen, Grieve, & Thomas (2004) –0.28 (–0.55, –0.01) –0.14 0.04686 BA Pictures** 20.20
Note. Underlined values, in the table, represent the overall effect size for each study, MBIES = Male Body Image Esteem Scale, BSQ (adjust) = Body Shape Questionnaire (ad-
justed), RSE = Rosenberg Self–Esteem scale, BSC = Body Self–Consciousness Questionnaire, VAS = Visual Analog Scale, SATAQ = Sociocultural Attitudes Toward Appear-

299
ance Questionnaire, BIBCI = Body Change Inventory, SM = Somatomorphic Matrix, **Extremely Muscular Rating, *Athletically Muscular Rating, AF = Action Figure.
300 BARLETT ET AL.

between exposure to muscular images and the psychological disor-

ders showed that there was a negative relationship between expo-
sure to ideal images and psychological disorders, d = –0.25, κ = 7, CI:
–0.36 to –0.12. No behavioral outcomes were assessed in the experi-
mental studies. Overall, these findings suggest that body esteem is
the most affected, which provides evidence that the way males feel
about their body is related to exposure to muscular male depictions,
but not significantly more affected than their body satisfaction and
self–esteem.
To determine the relationship between exposure to the ideal body
image and negative self images as a function of media type and body
type of the stimuli, a moderator analysis was conducted. The results
show that the muscularity rating of the stimulus was not a significant
moderator, QB(1) = .40, n.s. Both effect size estimates for the ex-
tremely muscular, d = –0.29, κ = 7, CI: –0.44 to –0.14, and athletically
muscular male images, d = –0.17, κ = 3, CI: –0.50 to 0.16, were nega-
tive, although the confidence interval for the athletically muscular
males included zero. Therefore, these results suggest that only the
extremely muscular male images are related to negative self–images
in males. It should be noted, however, that these confidence intervals
overlap indicating that the effect sizes are not significantly different.
Moderator analyses indicated that the form of media image pre-
sentation did not moderate the relationship between exposure to the
ideal body image and negative self–image development, QB(2) =
0.09, n.s. This may be a function of the low number of studies in each
media format. However, this suggests that relationships between the
mass media and negative self–images are similar for television, d =
–0.26, κ = 1, CI: –0.57 to 0.05, magazines, d = –0.28, κ = 6, CI: –0.46 to
–0.11, and action figures, d = –0.23, κ = 3, CI: –0.53 to 0.06. See Table 4
for these results.
To assess the size of relationships between media exposure to the
ideal male image and negative self–images for men and women, the
overall effect size estimate of this meta–analysis was compared to the
overall effect size estimate of the meta–analysis conducted by Groesz
et al. (2002). The current meta–analysis examined the influence of the
mass media on men, while the meta–analysis by Groesz et al. (2002)
examined women. Also, the current meta–analysis included experi-
mental studies that emphasized the muscular ideal male image
while the Groesz et al. (2002) meta–analysis used only experimental
META–ANALYSES OF MALE BODY IMAGE 301

studies that included a thin ideal female image. A high degree of sim-
ilarity would suggest that males and females are both prone to feel-
ing worse about their bodies after viewing media images of their par-
ticular ideal to similar degrees. Caution in the interpretation of the
proceeding results is warranted, as we did not use a specific statisti-
cal test to compare the effect size estimates between the Groesz et al.
(2002) and the current meta–analysis. Rather, examination of the
confidence intervals and effect sizes estimates were conducted.
Ninety–five percent confidence intervals represent an estimate of
population variance of an effect size (Aron & Aron, 2003). The extent
to which overlap occurs between the confidence intervals of differ-
ent effect sizes provides an indirect test to see if the estimated param-
eters for the populations differ. If there is overlap, this suggests that
the samples used to produce the parameter estimates may have been
taken from the same population distribution of effect sizes (i.e., hav-
ing the same effect sizes). If there is no overlap that suggests the
samples may have been taken from different population
distributions of effect sizes (i.e., having different effect sizes).
Upon comparing the overall effect size estimate for the meta–anal-
ysis for experimental studies, d = –0.22, CI: –0.30 to –0.14, and the
Groesz et al. (2002) meta–analysis, d = –0.31, CI: –0.40 to –0.23, one
can see that the effect size estimates are similar. This shows that me-
dia depictions of ideal bodies is related to negative self–images in
both men and women, as evident by the similar confidence intervals
from the Groesz et al. (2002) study and the current study. The great
deal of overlap in the confidence in these two meta–analyses suggest
that negative self–image concerns produced by the mass media are
not specific to women as once thought (Cohane & Pope, 2001).

DISCUSSION
Similar to the findings from Study 1, results from the current study
showed an overall negative effect size estimate, suggesting that after
exposure to muscular media stimuli, male participants had more
negative body images. The results also showed that body satisfaction
and body esteem were both negatively affected, and psychological
outcomes (e.g., depression) were likely to be increased, after expo-
sure to muscular stimuli. No moderators were statistically signifi-
cant. The results from Study 2 offer a closer approximation of
302 BARLETT ET AL.

TABLE 4. Effect Size Estimates for Moderators for Experimental Studies

95% Confidence Interval

Moderator Variable k d Lower Upper
Body Image Construct Body Esteem 7 –0.40 –0.54 –0.26
Body Satisfaction 14 –0.25 –0.32 –0.17
Self–esteem 7 –0.03 –0.14 0.08
Outcomes 7 –0.24 –0.36 –0.12
Specific Outcomes Behavioral 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Psychological 7 –0.24 –0.36 –0.12
Media Form TV 1 –0.26 –0.57 0.05
Magazine 6 –0.28 –0.46 –0.11
Action Figures 3 –0.23 –0.53 0.06
Stimuli Body Extremely Muscular 7 –0.29 –0.44 –0.14
Athletically Muscular 3 –0.17 –0.50 0.16

causality because of the experimental nature of the studies synthe-

sized. We are not arguing that the mass media is the only variable
that influences body image; however, these results suggest that the
mass media is an important factor in how males think and feel about
their bodies.

GENERAL DISCUSSION
The current meta–analyses were conducted in order to determine the
relationship between viewing muscular male images presented by
the mass media and negative self–images. Overall, these results
strongly suggest that exposure to these ideal images are associated
with males feeling worse about their bodies. Exposure to muscular
ideals were associated with lower levels of body esteem and body
satisfaction and with increased levels of negative behavioral and
psychological outcomes.
The results from the meta–analyses also showed that these effects
are shown in both correlational and experimental designs. Both
meta–analyses showed a similar pattern of results, and the confi-
dence intervals for both effect size estimates overlap. Interestingly,
the age of the participants did moderate the relationship between
ideal male exposure and negative self–image variables in the
correlational studies. College–aged males had a stronger relation-
ship between pressure from the mass media and negative self–im-
META–ANALYSES OF MALE BODY IMAGE 303

ages (assessed using experiments or correlations) than did

adolescent males.
For the experimental studies, results showed that the types of me-
dia format and types of muscular stimuli (extremely or athletically)
did not moderate the overall relationship. This suggests that the
stimuli presented in experimental studies do not have to be ex-
tremely muscular to produce negative self–images. Theoretically,
this suggests that any muscular stimulus that is shown to males will
initiate the predicted social comparison process and internalize soci-
ety’s standards of muscularity, which is predicted to increase nega-
tive self–images. Finally, the overall effect size was comparable to the
effect size from a previous meta–analysis looking at women. The
95% confidence interval around the overall effect size estimates from
the current meta–analysis (Study 2) and the one from Groesz et al.
(2002) overlapped, which suggests that both men and women had a
similar relationship between exposure to the ideal body in the mass
media and feeling worse about their bodies.
These findings contribute to the literature in multiple ways. The
first contribution is that it helps to dispel any controversy in the liter-
ature about what the effects are shown between pressure from the
mass media and negative self–image in men, by synthesizing those
studies that did (e.g., Grogan, Williams, & Conner, 1996;
Hausenblas, Janelle, Gardner, & Hagan, 2003; Humphreys & Paxton,
2004; Murnen, Smolak, Mills, & Good, 2003) and did not (e.g.,
McCabe & Ricciardelli, 2003; Ricciardelli, McCabe, & Banfield, 2000)
support the hypothesis that pressure from the mass media produced
negative self–images. Another contribution is that these meta–analy-
ses demonstrate the extent to which each of the three factors and spe-
cific outcomes is affected. In other words, these meta–analyses offer
empirical evidence to the extent to which body esteem, body satisfac-
tion, self–esteem, and behavioral outcomes are affected by mass
media pressure.
Although the results from both meta–analyses suggest that the re-
lationship between pressure from the mass media and each of the
previously mentioned variables were similar, it is important to em-
phasize that this result does not suggest that these constructs are in-
terchangeable. Each construct (body esteem, body satisfaction, and
self–esteem) is defined and measured differently, and the results
304 BARLETT ET AL.

from the meta–analyses do not suggest convergent validity between

these variables.
The results from the current meta–analyses offer support for the tri-
partite influence model (Smolak et al., 2005). The results highlight a
strong link between sociocultural factors (specifically pressure from
the mass media) and psychological factors (specifically negative
self–image concerns). Further, the results from the two meta–analyses
support the indirect link between pressure from the mass media and
behavioral and psychological outcomes. However, to fully test the
predictions of this model, future meta–analyses should synthesize the
relevant literature that has provided evidence for a relationship be-
tween pressure from the mass media and internalization and social
comparison, which are the two proposed mediating variables. Al-
though the focus of the current meta–analyses was on the relationship
between the mass media and negative self–images in males, future
meta–analytic work could synthesize the relevant literature on how
peers and parents (along with the mass media) influence negative
self–images. Although parents and peers are important sociocultural
influences in both the tripartite influence model and the Cafri et al.
model, the current meta–analyses did not focus on these influences,
because we were interested in the impact that pressure from the mass
media had on negative self–images, not parents or peers.
Results also support the predictions posited by the Cafri et al.
model, which states that pressure from the mass media is related to
negative self–images and negative behavioral outcomes. Results
from the meta–analysis of correlational studies showed that age did
moderate the overall relationship between pressure from the mass
media and negative self–image. The results from the meta–analysis
of experimental studies do not show similar effects. It is predicted
that this is the case because there is more age range variation in the
correlational studies than in the experimental studies. However,
these results do suggest that age is an important moderating
variable, as suggested by the Cafri et al. model.
These meta–analyses are not without limitations. For instance, in
Study 1, all of the studies were correlational, and exposure to the
muscular male image cannot be confirmed to have negatively af-
fected the self–image of these participants because it is unclear what
image the participants were retrieving in memory at the time the
scales were administered. In other words, perhaps the males were
META–ANALYSES OF MALE BODY IMAGE 305

thinking of nonmuscular images and felt better, or worse, about their

bodies. Given the frequency that muscular images are used in the
mass media (Pope et al., 1999), it is likely, but not certain, that partici-
pants were retrieving images that were idealized, however this is
probably not the only message the participants retrieved. For in-
stance, muscular male images in the mass media (i.e., via magazines,
videos, and action figures) are complex and may also convey cues
about aggression and/or masculinity.
Another limitation is that the meta–analysis for the correlational
studies (Study 1) synthesized literature which used different meth-
ods for assessing pressure from the mass media. The media scales
used in the primary literature either specifically ask if viewing the
mass media provides viewers with the idea of increasing muscles or
decreasing weight (McCabe, Ricciardelli, & Finemore, 2002;
Ricciardelli & McCabe, 2003), or just by asking participants how
many hours of media (i.e., television, magazines, movies) the partici-
pants watch and by having participants indicate how often they view
specific “male–directed magazines” (Hatoum & Belle, 2004, p. 400).
Thus, there are multiple methods for assessing how often partici-
pants view the media which is correlated with negative self–image
variables. The limitation is that there is a difference between the
amount of exposure to the mass media and the contents of such stim-
uli, and, unfortunately, both types of questions were synthesized.
However, there has not been much work done, and we have to syn-
thesize the literature available. Future research needs to make a clear
distinction between these two types of measures.
A final limitation is that the current meta–analyses did not include
any unpublished studies. The goal of a meta–analysis is to synthesize
all of the relevant literature in a domain, and not including unpub-
lished studies is a limitation. However, the current meta–analyses
had a fail safe N of 300 correlational studies and 280 experimental
studies, which leads us to believe that these effects would be robust if
unpublished work would have been included.
The main finding from the current meta–analyses is that there is a
significant relationship between exposure to muscular media im-
ages and negative self–images in males. These meta–analyses suffi-
ciently showed that males and females are similarly affected after ex-
posure to idealized images, the type of media format and type of
stimulus did not significantly moderate the overall relationship
306 BARLETT ET AL.

(Study 2), and older males are more negatively influenced by muscu-
lar media images than younger males (Study 1). It is speculated that
older participants are more affected by pressure from the media for
multiple reasons. First, older males have seen more media than
younger males (as shown in correlational studies), and, thus, have
seen more pictures, movies, and television shows involving muscu-
lar men. Second, older, college–aged participants have gone through
puberty at the time of testing, which younger participants (aged 13 to
14; Muris et al., 2005) may not have gone through puberty. Research
has shown that puberty timing is related to negative self–image in
males (see Cafri et al., 2005), therefore, older participants who have
gone through puberty may be more impacted by pressure from the
mass media than younger participants.
Furthermore, the findings from these meta–analyses are robust to
differences in research designs, as the effect sizes from the two
meta–analyses, with correlational and experimental studies, are sim-
ilar. Overall, our results combined with the literature on women, in-
dicate that both men and women are affected by exposure to ideal-
ized images in the mass media, which is often associated with
negative feelings and thoughts about their bodies. This suggests that
the use of muscular male models or skinny female models in the
mass media is potentially damning to “every–body."

REFERENCES

Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological Bul-

letin, 97, 129–133.
*Agliata, D., & Tantleff–Dunn, S. (2004). The impact of media on males’ body im-
age. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 7–22.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of men-
tal disorders–TR (4th ed.). Washington DC: American Psychiatric
Association.
Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (2003). Statistics for psychology (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baranowski, M. J., Jorga, J., Djordjevic, I., Marinkovic, J., & Hetherington, M. M.
(2003). Evaluation of adolescent body satisfaction and associated eating
disorder pathology in two communities. European Eating Disorders Review,
11, 478–495.

* Indicates studies used in the current meta-anaylsis

META–ANALYSES OF MALE BODY IMAGE 307

*Barlett, C. P., Harris, R. J., Smith, S., & Bonds–Raacke, J. (2005). Action figures
and men. Sex Roles, 53, 877–885.
Blovin, A. G., & Goldfield, G. S. (1995). Body image and steroid use in male
bodybuilders. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 18, 159–165.
*Botta, R. A. (2003). For your health? The relationship between magazine reading
and adolescents’ body image and eating disturbances. Sex Roles, 48,
389–399.
Cafri, G., & Thompson, J. K. (2004). Measuring male body image: A review of the
current methodology. Psychology of Men and Muscularity, 5, 18–29.
Cafri, G., Thompson, K., Ricciardelli, L., McCabe, M., Smolak, L., & Yesalis, C.
(2005). Pursuit of the muscular ideal: Physical and psychological conse-
quences and putative risk factors. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 215–239.
Cohane, G. H., & Pope, H. G. (2001). Body image and boys: A review of the litera-
ture. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 29, 373–379.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
*Duggan, S. J., & McCreary, D. R. (2004). Body image, eating disorders, and the
drive for muscularity in gay and heterosexual men: The influence of media
images. Journal of Homosexuality, 47, 45–58.
Elliott, R., & Elliott, C. (2005). Idealized images of the male body in advertising: A
reader–response exploration. Journal of Marketing Communications, 11,
3–19.
Franzoi, S. L., & Herzog, M. E. (1986). The body esteem scale: A convergent and
discriminant validity study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 24–31.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward under-
standing women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206.
Furnham, A., Badmin, N., & Sneade, I. (2002). Body image dissatisfaction: Gen-
der differences in eating attitudes, self–esteem, and reasons for exercise.
Journal of Psychology, 136, 581–596.
Groesz, L. M., Levine, M. P., & Murnen, S. K. (2002). The effect of experimental
presentation of thin media images on body satisfaction: A meta–analytic
review. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 31, 1–16.
*Grogan, S., Williams, Z., & Conner, M. (1996). The effects of viewing same–gen-
der photographic models on body–esteem? Psychology of Women Quar-
terly, 20, 569–575.
Hargreaves, D., & Tiggemann, M. (2002). The effect of television commercials on
mood and body dissatisfaction: The role of appearance–schema activa-
tion. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21, 287–308.
Harris, R. J., Cady, E. T., & Barlett, C. P. (2007). Media. In F. Durso (Ed.), Handbook
of applied cognition (2nd ed., pp. 659–682). Chichester, UK: John Wiley and
Sons.
*Hatoum, I. J., & Belle, D. (2004). Mags and abs: Media consumption and bodily
concerns in men. Sex Roles, 51, 397–407.
*Hausenblas, H. A., Janelle, C. M., Gardner, R. E., & Hagan, A. L. (2003). Affec-
308 BARLETT ET AL.

tive responses of high and low body satisfied men to viewing physique
slides. Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment and Prevention, 11, 101–113.
Hedges, L. V. (1983). A random effects model for effect size. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 93, 388–395.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta–analysis. Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.
*Humphreys, P., & Paxton, S. J. (2004). Impact of exposure to idealized male im-
ages on adolescent boys’ body image. Body Image, 1, 253–266.
Johnson, B. T. (1993). DSTAT: Software for the meta–analytic review of research litera-
tures (version 1.11) [computer program]. Philadelphia: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
*Jones, D. C. (2001). Social comparison and body image: Attractiveness compari-
sons to models and peers among adolescent girls and boys. Sex Roles, 45,
645–664.
*Jones, D. C., Vigfusdottir, T. H., & Lee, Y. (2004). Body image and the appear-
ance culture among adolescent girls and boys: An examination of friend
conversations, peer criticism, appearance magazines, and the internaliza-
tion of appearance ideals. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 323–339.
*Kalodner, C. R. (1997). Media influences on male and female noneating disor-
dered college students: A significant issue. Eating Disorders: The Journal of
Treatment and Prevention, 5, 47–57.
Kirkpatrick, S. W., & Sanders, D. M. (1978). Body image stereotypes: A develop-
mental comparison. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 132, 87–95.
Leit, R. A., Gray, J. J., & Pope, H. G. (2001). Cultural expectations of muscularity
in men: The evolution of Playgirl centerfolds. International Journal of Eating
Disorders, 29, 90–93.
*Leit, R. A., Gray, J. J., & Pope, H. G. (2002). The media’s representation of the
ideal male body: A cause for muscle dysmorphia? International Journal of
Eating Disorders, 31, 334–338.
*Lorenzen, L. A., Grieve, F. G., & Thomas, A. (2004). Exposure to muscular male
models decreases men’s body satisfaction. Sex Roles, 51, 743–748.
McCabe, M. P., & Ricciardelli, L. A. (2001). Parent, peer, and media influences on
body image and strategies to both increase and decrease body size among
adolescent boys and girls. Adolescence, 36, 225–240.
*McCabe, M. P., & Ricciardelli, L. A. (2003). Sociocultural influences on body im-
age and body changes among adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Social
Psychology, 143, 5–26.
*McCabe, M. P., Ricciardelli, L. A., & Finemore, J. (2002). The role of puberty, me-
dia and popularity with peers on strategies to increase weight, decrease
weight and increase muscle tone among adolescent boys and girls. Journal
of Psychosomatic Research, 52, 145–154.
McCabe, M. P., Ricciardelli, L., Mellor, D., & Ball, K. (2005). Media influences on
body image and disordered eating among indigenous adolescent Austra-
lians. Adolescence, 40, 115–127.
*Muris, P., Meesters, C., van de Blom, W., & Mayer, B. (2005). Biological, psycho-
META–ANALYSES OF MALE BODY IMAGE 309

logical, and sociocultural correlates of body change strategies and eating

problems in adolescent boys and girls. Eating Behaviors, 6, 11–22.
*Murnen, S. K., Smolak, L., Mills, A., & Good, L. (2003). Thin, sexy women and
strong, muscular men: Grade–school children’s responses to objectified
images of women and men. Sex Roles, 49, 427–437.
O’Dea, J. A., & Abraham, S. (1999). Onset of disordered eating attitudes and be-
haviors in early adolescence: Interplay of puberty status, gender, weight,
and age. Adolescence, 34, 671–679.
Ogden, J., & Mundray, K. (1996). The effect of the media on body satisfaction:
The role of gender and size. European Eating Disorders Review, 4, 171–182.
Polce–Lynch, M., Myers, B. J., Kliewer, W., & Kilmartin, C. (2001). Adolescent
self–esteem and gender: Exploring relations to sexual harassment, body
image, media influence, and emotional expression. Journal of Youth and Ad-
olescence, 30, 225–244.
Pope, H. G., Olivardia, R., Gruber, A., & Borowiecki, J. (1999). Evolving ideals of
male body image as seen through action toys. International Journal of Eating
Disorders, 26, 65–72.
Pope, H. G., Phillips, K. A., & Olivardia, R. (2000). The Adonis complex: The secret
crisis of male body obsession. New York: The Free Press.
Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1992). When small effects are impressive. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 112, 160–164.
Presnell, K., Bearman, S. K., & Stice, E. (2004). Risk factors for body dissatisfac-
tion in adolescent boys and girls: A prospective study. International Journal
of Eating Disorders, 36, 389–401.
*Ricciardelli, L. A., & McCabe, M. P. (2001). Self–esteem and negative affect as
moderators of sociocultural influences on body dissatisfaction, strategies
to decrease weight, and strategies to increase muscles among adolescent
boys and girls. Sex Roles, 44, 189–207.
*Ricciardelli, L. A., & McCabe, M. P. (2003). Sociocultural and individual influ-
ences on muscle gain and weight loss strategies among adolescent boys
and girls. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 209–224.
Ricciardeli, L. A., & McCabe, M. P. (2004). A biopsychosocial model of disor-
dered eating and the pursuit of muscularity in adolescent boys. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 130, 179–205.
*Ricciardelli, L. A., McCabe, M. P., & Banfield, S. (2000). Body image and body
change methods in adolescent boys: Role of parents, friends, and the me-
dia. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 49, 189–197.
Ridgeway, R. T., & Tylka, T. L. (2005). College men’s perceptions of ideal body
composition and shape. Psychology of Men and Muscularity, 6, 209–220.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self–image. Princeton, NJ: Prince-
ton University Press.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta–analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V.
 310 BARLETT ET AL.

Hedges, The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Founda-
tion.
Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta–analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118,
183–192.
Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). Meta–analysis: Recent developments in
quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology,
52, 59–82.
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1979). Comparing significance levels of independ-
ent studies. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 1165–1168.
Salusso–Deonier, C. J., Markee, N. L., & Pedersen, E. L. (1993). Gender differ-
ences in the evaluation of physical attractiveness ideals for male and fe-
male body builders. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 1155–1167.
Shroff, H., & Thompson, J. K. (2006). The tripartite influence model of body im-
age and eating disturbance: A replication with adolescent girls. Body Im-
age, 3, 17–23.
Smith, R. (2000). Linking goal attainment to happiness: A moderator of the me-
dia effects on eating disorders? Dissertation–Abstracts–International: Sec-
tion B: The Sciences and Engineering, 61 (9–B), 5008.
Smolak, L., Murnen, S. K., & Thompson, J. K. (2005). Sociocultural influences and
muscle building in adolescent boys. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 6,
227–239.
Staffieri, J. R. (1967). A study of social stereotype on body image in children. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 101–104.
Sterling, T. D. (1959). Publication decisions and their possible effects on infer-
ences drawn from tests of significance—or vice versa. Journal of the Ameri-
can Statistical Association, 54, 30–34.
Stice, E., Schupak–Neuberg, E., Shaw, H. E., & Stein, R. L. (1994). Relation of me-
dia exposure to eating disorder symptomatology: An examination of me-
diating mechanisms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 836–840.
*Tiggemann, M. (2005). Television and adolescent body image: The role of pro-
gram content and viewing motivation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 24, 361–381.
Turkel, A. R. (1998). All about Barbie: Distortions of a transitional object. Journal
of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 26, 165–177.
*Vartanian, L. R., Giant, C. L., & Passino, R. M. (2001). “Ally McBeal vs. Arnold
Schwarzenegger”: Comparing mass media, interpersonal feedback and
gender as predictors of satisfaction with body thinness and muscularity.
Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 711–723.
Wienke, C. (1998). Negotiating the male body: Men, masculinity, and cultural
ideals. Journal of Men’s Studies, 6, 255–282.
Wiseman, C. V., Sunday, S. R., & Becker, A. E. (2005). Impact of the media on ado-
lescent body image. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North Amer-
ica, 14, 453–471.

View publication stats