Body Size, Physical Attractiveness, and Body Image among Young Adult Women: Relationships

to Sexual Experience and Sexual Esteem

Author(s): Michael W. Wiederman and Shannon R. Hurst
Source: The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 35, No. 3 (Aug., 1998), pp. 272-281
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3813247
Accessed: 30-03-2015 20:22 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Sex Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:22:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Body Size, PhysicalAttractiveness,and Body Image AmongYoungAdult

Women:Relationshipsto Sexual Experienceand Sexual Esteem
MichaelW.Wiedermanand ShannonR. Hurst
Ball State University

andbodyimagemayseemapparent,littleempirAlthoughlinksbetweenwomen'ssexualityandbodysize,attractiveness,
ical workhas beenconductedon thistopic.In the currentstudy,youngadultwomen(N = 192) completedquestionnaires
attractiveness,
Ingeneral,currentbodysize,experimenter-ratedfacial
andwereweighedandratedforfacialattractiveness.
statusandsexualexperiwererelatedin somewaysto currentrelationship
andself-ratedfacial andbodilyattractiveness
in
avoidanceof social settingsdue to appearanceconcerns,and degreeof investment
ence.Generalbodydissatisfaction,
Highersexualesteemwas relatedto
statusandsexualexperience.
one'sphysicalappearancewereunrelatedto relationship
ratingsoffacial attractiveness.
butnot to actualbodysize or experimenter
subjectiveviewsof attractiveness,
thatwomenareobjectified
It hasbeenwell-documented
morethanmen:Women'sbodiesaremoreoftenlookedat,
evaluated,and sexualized(see Fredrickson& Roberts,
men place greater
1997, for review). Correspondingly,
than
emphasison a potentialmate'sphysicalattractiveness
do women(for reviewssee Buss, 1994;Feingold,1990;
linksbetweenwomen's
Jackson,1992).Giventheapparent
to men,howis
physicalappearance
andsexualdesirability
women'sattractiveness
relatedto theirownsexuality?
Althoughlinksbetweenwomen'ssexualityandphysical
and
attractiveness
andbodyimagemakesenseconceptually
(Daniluk,1993),this
aresupported
by everydayobservation
has been a topic infrequentlystudied.Those researchers
who have consideredpotential relationshipsbetween
andbodyimage
women'ssexualityandphysicalappearance
populations.
Forexamtypicallyhavedoneso in specialized
ple, researchers
haveconsideredbodyimageandsexuality
amongwomenwith gynecologicaldisease (Andersen&
LeGrand,1991;Bellerose& Binik, 1993),cancer(Vaeth,
1996),or seriouspsy1986),eatingdisorders(Wiederman,
chopathology
(Money,1994),as wellas amongwomenwho
haverecentlygivenbirth(Reamy& White,1987)orundergonemastectomy
(Kriss& Kraemer,1986).However,very
few have consideredtypical,young adultwomen.Those
or
studiesthathave exploredsexualityand attractiveness
body image amongnonclinicalsamplesof womenhave
finddoneso in limitedways,sometimeswithcontradictory
ings(Feingold,1992).
havefoundthatself-rated
Forexample,someresearchers
& DeLamater,
1979;
facialattractiveness
(MacCorquodale
(Faith
Murstein& Holden,1979),generalbodysatisfaction
& Schare,1993; Trapnell,Meston,& Gorzalka,1997),
The authorsexpressappreciationto Joel Edwards,CarriMaynard,and Carrie
Fretzfor assistancein datacollection.
Address correspondenceto Michael W. Wiederman,Ph.D., Departmentof
Psychological Science, Ball State University,Muncie, IN, 47306-0520; e-mail:
OOmwwiederma
@bsu.edu

physical attractiveness(Stelzer,
and experimenter-rated
Desmond,& Price, 1987) were positivelyrelatedto the
amountof lifetimesexualexperiencefor women(butsee
findingswithregardto
Walsh,1993,1995,forcontradictory
Whensuchrelationships
havebeen
self-rated
attractiveness).
havebeenquitemodest,so
found,however,thecorrelations
foundno relationit is not surprising
thatotherresearchers
andsexualexperience
shipbetweenself-ratedattractiveness
forwomen(Curran
& Lippold,1975;Feingold,1992).
Thesepaststudieshavebeenlimitedto examininggener(or simply
al attractiveness
or overallbodydissatisfaction
as relatedto generalsexualexperience
facialattractiveness)
(i.e., typicallyvirginitystatusor lifetimenumberof sexual
In a timewhenwritershavecalledfor
intercourse
partners).
of individual
differences
in women's
increasedinvestigation
& Cyranowski,
1995),physicalappearsexuality(Anderson
ance andbody imagehavebeen neglectedtopics.In this
andbody
studywe exploredseveralaspectsof attractiveness
image as these attributesand perceptionsmightrelateto
women'ssexualexperienceandsexualesteem.
corFirst,we assessedwomen'sbodysize as a1potential
relateof theirsexuality.Althougha smallminorityof men
preferlargeor obese women(Goode& Preissler,1983),
Americanmalesgenerallyfindrelativelythinwomenmost
sexually desirable(Harris,Walters,& Washull, 199l;
Spillman& Everington,1989).Heavierwomenaregenerally stigmatized(Crandall,1994;Harris,1990;Harriset
Felicio,& Brand,1995),espeal., 1991;Miller,Rothblum,
cially with regardto issues of sexualityand courtship
(Regan,1996; Sobal, Nicolopoulos,& Lee, 1995), and
for heterosexualdating
mayhavedecreasedopportunities
(Kallen& Doughty,1984; Schumaker,Krejci,Small, &
Sargent,1985;Tiggemann& Rothblum,1988).
is also a relevantvariableto assess
Facialattractiveness
when examininglinks betweenphysicalappearanceand
appearsto be an important
sexuality.Facialattractiveness
determinantof male romanticand sexual interestin a
particularfemale(Gangestad,1993; Symons, 1995).

The Journal of Sex Research Volume 35, Number 3, August 1998: pp. 272-281

This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:22:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SO?

272

273

Wiederman and Hurst

faciallyattractive,
heterosexual
womenmayhaverelatively moresexualexperienceandgreatersexualesteemas a
resultof greatermaleattentionin generalor attentionfrom
relativelymoreattractiveanddesirablemenin particular.
Althoughphysicalattractiveness
andbody size maybe
importantdeterminantsof male attentionand sexual
opportunity,
subjectiveviews aboutone'sfacialandbodily attractiveness
may also be relatedto sexualexperience
and sexual esteem. The subjectivecomponentof body
imageis important
because,althoughbodydissatisfaction
andbodysize aresignificantlyrelatedamongwomen,the
correlationis far from perfect(Bailey,Goldberg,Swap,
Chomitz, & Houser, 1990; Brodie & Slade, 1988).
Accordingly,a largeproportionof womenin this culture
believe they are overweight (Cash & Henry, 1995;
Silberstein,Striegel-Moore,
Timko,& Rodin,1988), and
somedegreeof bodydissatisfaction
appearsto be normativefor womenin theUnitedStates(Rodin,Silberstein,&
Striegel-Moore,1984; Silberstein, Striegel-Moore,&
Rodin, 1987). Conceivably,having a relativelypositive
view of one's physicalattributeswouldallow for greater
confidencein heterosexual
interactions,
whichmayleadto
greateropportunitiesfor sexualinvolvementand validation (Trapnellet al., 1997). For this reason, we also
assessedwomen'sviews of theirfacialandbodilyattractiveness,includinggeneralbodydissatisfaction.
Body image,however,is a multifacetedphenomenon,
and we sought to investigatepossible links between
women'ssexualityand otheraspectsof theirexperience
relatedto physical appearance.For example,although
womeninvestrelativelymorein theirphysicalappearance
comparedto men(Siever,1994;Sullivan& Harnish,1990),
thereareindividualdifferencesamongwomenwithregard
to the degreeof effortdevotedto enhancingtheirphysical
appearance
(Brown,Cash,& Mikulka,1990).Womenwho
placemoreemphasison theirappearance,
or demonstrate
a
higherdegreeof appearance orientation, mayhaveincorporatedto a greaterdegreethe culturalobjectification
of
women'sbodies(Fredrickson
& Roberts,1997).As a result,
womenhighin appearance
orientation
maybe moreprone
to experiencingself-consciousnessregardinghow their
bodyappearsto others,particularly
men,andthereforemay
avoid sexual interactions.At minimum,women high in
appearance
orientation
mayview themselvesas less desirable as a sexual partner(i.e., demonstratelow sexual
esteem)dueto greaterself-consciousness
overtheirphysical appearance
(andhencesexualappeal).
Justas womenvaryin degreeof appearance
orientation,
theyalsovarywithregardto degreeof generalsocialavoidance due to concernover physicalappearance(Rosen,
Srebnik,Saltzberg,& Wendt, 1991). Accordingly,we
assessedthe degreeto whichwomenavoidsocialsettings
becauseof negativebody image.Womenwho avoidsettings in whichthey believethey mightbe scrutinizedby
men may have less opportunityfor heterosexualinvolvement, and hence may have relativelyless sexual experience
and lower sexual esteem.

In summary,
we soughtto investigatepotentialrelationships betweenwomen'sheterosexualdatingand sexual
experience,sexual esteem, physicalattractiveness,
body
size, andsubjectivebodyimage.Specifically,we hypothesized that relatively greater sexual experience and
increasedsexualesteemamongyoungadultwomenwould
be relatedto (1) greateractualfacialattractiveness;
(2) relativelylowerbody weight;(3) relativelylowerbodydissatisfactionand higherself-ratingsof attractiveness;
(4)
lower appearanceorientation;and (5) less avoidanceof
socialsituationsdueto concernoverphysicalappearance.
Assumingthatwe foundthehypothesized
relationships,
it would be unclear whether relationshipsbetween
attractiveness
and sexual experiencewere the result of
decreasedopportunity
(i.e., less interestshownby potential partners)or differencesin sexualattitudes(withmore
attractivewomenpossiblyholdingmorepositiveattitudes
towardsex). To ascertainwhetherany relationshipswere
mediatedby sexual attitudes,we also measuredrespondents'affectiveorientationtowardsexual stimuli(erotophobia/erotophilia)
and attitudesregardingcomfortwith
casualsex.
METHOD
Participants

Researchparticipants
were initially232 womenrecruited
from introductorypsychology classes at Ball State
Universitywho receivedresearchcredit towardpartial
completionof theirpsychologycourse.Twowomenwere
excluded from analyses because they were pregnant.
Becausethe focus of the currentstudywas heterosexual
experience,five women who identifiedthemselvesas
exclusivelyorprimarily
lesbianwereexcludedfromfurther
analyses.To ensurea ratherhomogeneoussamplewith
regardto age(bodysizeis positivelyrelatedto age;Andres,
1995),we also excludedwomenages 22 or older(n = 26)
fromfurtheranalyses.Becausethe existenceof eatingdisordersis apparently
relatedto women'ssexualityin idiosyncraticways (Wiederman,
1996),sevenwomenwithan
exceptionallylow bodymassindex(< 19),whichmaybe
indicativeof a historyof disordered
eating,wereexcluded
from analyses.The final samplecomprised192 young
womenaged 18to 21 (M= 18.91,SD = .90). Mostof the
women(89.6No)
wereWhite;7.8%wereBlack,and2.6%
wereLatina.
Measures
Relationshipstatusand sexual experience.Participants
indi-

catedtheircurrentrelationship
statususing six categones:
notdatinganyonecurrently,
casuallydatingoneormorepeople,datingonepersonexclusively,
livingwithromantic
partner,engagedorplanningto marry,andmarried.
Withregard
to sexualexperience,
eachrespondent
was askedto indicate
whethershe hadever experienced"sexualintercoursewith a
male(penisin vagina)"and"oralstimulationof yourgenitals
by a male,"and whethershe had "everorally stimulateda

This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:22:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

274

Body Image and Sexuality

male'sgenitals."
Respondents
werealso askedto providea
write-inresponseto thequestion,"Withhowmanydifferent
maleshaveyouhadsexualintercourse?"
Theaccuracy
of the
numberrespondents
generateforsucha questionis dubious
(see Wiederman,1997, for discussion of this issue).
However,in the currentstudy,lifetimenumberof sexual
intercourse
partnerswas used as a potentialcorrelateof
scoreson measuresof bodysize, attractiveness,
and body
image.Thus,theabsolutenumberof partners
was unimportantforthecurrentpurposes,makinginclusionof thisvariableless problematic
(Brecher& Brecher,1986).
Sexual esteem. Sexualesteem,or thetendencyto evaluate oneself positivelyas a sexualpartner,was measured
with the shortform(Wiederman
& Allgeier,1993)of the
sexualesteemscalefromSnellandPapini(1989).A sample itemfromthe scaleis "Ithinkof myselfas a goodsexual partner."
Respondentsindicatedtheir degreeof disagreementor agreementwith each of the five statements
usinga S-pointscale(rangingfrom1 = StronglyDisagree
to 5 = StronglyAgree). Afterone itemis reverse-scored,
an
overal1scoreis generatedby summingacrossitems,with
higherscoresindicatingrelativelygreatersexualesteem.
Wiederman
andAllgeier(1993) reporteda relativelyhigh
correlationbetweenthe shortform and full scale among
womenin theirsample,andscoreson the shortformwere
moderately
correlated
to a measureof generalself-esteem.
In the currentstudy,the internalconsistencycoeffi1cient
(Chronbach's
alpha)was .92.
Sexual attitudes.Respondents
completedthebriefform
of the SexualOpinionSurvey(SOS;Fisher,Byrne,White,
& Kelly,1988)as a measureof theiraffectiveorientation
towarderoticstimuli.A sampleitem is "Thethoughtof
engaging in unusualsex practicesis highly arousing.
Respondentsindicatedtheirdegreeof agreementor disagreementwitheachof 5 statementsusinga 7-pointscale
(rangingfrom1 = StronglyAgree to 7 = StronglyDisagree).
Scoringconsistsof summingthe ratingsgivento the two
negativelywordeditems, addingthe value 19, and subtractingtheratingsgivento theremainingthreeitems(see
Fisheret al., 1988).Thus,higherscoresindicaterelatively
high attitudinalandaffectiveacceptanceof eroticstimuli
(i.e., erotophilia).In the currentstudy,the internalconsistencycoefficient(Chronbach's
alpha)was . 57.
As a measureof attitudinalacceptanceof casualsex,
respondentsalso completedthe three attitudinalitems
from the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI;
Simpson& Gangestad,1991):"Sexwithoutlove is O.K.";
"I can imaginemyselfcomfortableandenjoying"casual'
sex withdifferentpartners";
and"Iwouldhaveto be closely attachedto someone(bothemotionallyandpsychologically)beforeI couldfeel comfortable
andfullyenjoyhaving sex withhim/her."
Respondentsindicatedtheirdegree
of disagreement
or agreementwitheachstatementusing9point scales (rangingfrom 1 = Strongly Disagree to 9 =

of attitudetowardcasual(noncommitted)
sex, withhigher
scores indicativeof greateracceptance.In the current
study,the internalconsistencycoefficient(Chronbach's
alpha)was .70.
Actualattractiveness.Similarto pastresearch(Feingold,
1992), as a measureof actual facial attractiveness
(as
opposedto self-reported
facialattractiveness),
researchparticipantswereunobtrusively
andindependently
ratedby a
maleanda femaleresearchassistantusinga 7-pointscale
(rangingfrom I = Very Unattractive to 4 = Average
Attractiveness to 7 = Very Attractive). The correlation
betweenthe two was .52 (similarto previousstudiesusing
independent
raters;Feingold,1992).Wecreateda composite scoreby takingthemeanof thetworatings.Thesecompositesrangedfrom2 to 6.5 (M= 4.01;SD = .73).
Body size. Participants'
heightandweightwereconverted intoa standard
indexof overallbodysize,or bodymass
index(BMI),accordingto Quetelet'sindex(kg/m2;Garrow
& Webster,1985).BMItakesintoaccountthe individual's
heightandweight,andhasbeenshownto be a convenient
andrelativelyaccuratemeasureof overalladiposity(Brodie
& Slade,1988;Hanna,Wrate,Cowen,& Freeman,1995).

StronglyAgree). In line with the original scoring of the

instrument,the last item was reverse-scoredand the mean
response across the three items was taken as an indicator

RelationsQuestionnaire(Brownet al., 1990).A sampleitem

is "Beforegoing out, I usually spend a lot of time getting
ready."Participantsresponded to the 12 items using a

Body dissatisfaction and self-rated attractiveness.

Generalbodydissatisfaction
wasmeasuredwiththecorrespondingsubscalefrom the EatingDisordersInventory
(EDI; Garner,Olmsted,& Polivy, 1983). The EDI is a
widelyused,self-report
measureof eating-related
attitudes
andtraitsthatis reliableandhasbeenextensivelyvalidated (see Garner,1991).The Body Dissatisfactionsubscale
tapsthe respondent's
currentdissatisfaction
with specific
body partsthat are of greatestconcernto women(e.g.,
hips, thighs, buttocks),with higher scores indicating
greaterbodydissatisfaction.
A sampleitemis "Ithinkthat
my thighsaretoo large."Participants
respondedto thenine
itemsusinga 6-pointscale (rangingfrom l = Always to 6
= Never).After4 itemsarereverse-scored,
anoverallscore
is createdby summingresponsesacrossal1 nine items.
Garner(1991) reportedinternalconsistencycoefficients
rangingfrom.91 to .93 acrossthreestudies,as well as testretestcorrelationsof .95 for one week and .97 for three
weeks.In the currentstudy,the internalconsistencycoefficient(Chronbach's
alpha)was .89.
Self-ratedbodilyattractiveness
was assessedby asking
respondentsto use a 7-point scale to indicate their
responseto the statement"Overall,I wouldratetheattractivenessof my body as ...." The responsescale was
anchoredwith 1 = WellBelow Average, 4 = Average, and
7 = Well Above Average. Similar to past research
(Feingold, 1992), self-rated facial attractivenesswas
assessedby presentingthe same7-pointscale in response
to thestatement"Overall,I wouldratetheattractiveness
of
my face as ...."
Appearance orientation Respondentscompletedthe
Appearance
Orientation
subscaletakenfromtheBody-Self

This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:22:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Wiedermanand Hurst

275

5-pointscale(rangingfrom1 = DefinitelyDisagree to S =
DefinitelyAgree).Afterfourof theitemsarereverse-scored,
an overallscoreis computedby summingresponsesacross
the 12items.Higherscoresindicatea greateremotionaland
behavioral
investment
in one'sphysicalappearance.
Brown
et al. (1990)reportedan internalconsistencycoefficientof
.84forwomenanda test-retest
correlation
of .90 acrossfour
weeks.In thecurrentstudy,the internalconsistencycoefficient(Chronbach's
alpha)was .87.
Social avoadance. Respondentscompletedthe Social
Activities subscale of the Body Image Avoidance
Questionnaire
(Rosenet al., 1991).A sampleitemis i4Ido
not go out sociallyif thepeopleI am witharethinnerthan
me."Participants
respondedto eachof thefouritemsusing
a 6-pointscale (rangingfrom 1 = Never to 6 = Always).
Ratingsacrossthe fouritemsare summedto computean
overallscore,with higherscoresindicatinga greatertendencyto avoidsocialactivitiesin whichbodyweightand
appearance
maybe a focus.Rosenet a].(1991)reportedan
internalconsistencycoefficientof .89 anda test-retestcorrelationof .87 acrosstwo weeks.Rosenet al. (1991) also
providedmultiple sources of validity data, including
convergence
withestablishedmeasuresof body-imagedisturbance
anddisordered
eatingandnotablechangesin scale
scoresaftertreatment
forbody-imageconcerns.In thecurrent study, the internal consistency coefficient
(Chronbach's
alpha)was .83.
Procedure

Whensigningup for potentialparticipation

in the study,
respondentswereawareonly thatparticipation
was worth
one hourof researchcredit.The natureof the studywas
not discloseduntiltheirarrivalat the testingsite. Noneof
the potential participantsrefused to participateupon
learningof the natureof the study.Participants
completed
the anonymousquestionnairebooklet in small groups
rangingfrom5 to 20 women,and all participantsdid so
in the presenceof the same male and female research
assistant.As each participantwas completingthe questionnairepacket,each researchassistantinconspicuously
and independentlyratedthe facialattractiveness
of each
participantandrecordedhis or herrespectiveratingon a
codingsheet.
Becausepastresearchhasshownthatcollegewomenfrequentlydistorttheirweightin self-reports
(e.g. BetznMintz,
& Speakmon,1994),we weighedrespondents.
Uponcompletingthequestionnaire,
respondents
depositedit in a box
andwalkedto a separateroomnearby,wheretwo female
graduatestudentsweighedparticipants
andmeasuredtheir
height.Heightwasmeasured
usinga tapemeasuremounted
to the wall andweightwas measuredusinga digitalscale.
Upon completionof the measurements,
participants
were
thankedandprovidedwitha creditslipanda debriefingslip
describingthe high prevalenceof body dissatisfaction
amongwomenon collegecampusesandthe availability
of
confidentialcounselingfor body-imageconcernsthrough
theuniversitycounselingcenter.

RESULTS

Becauseof therelativelylargenumberof inferentialstatistics performedin the currentstudy,we soughtto avoid

TypeI errors.Ratherthanfocus exclusivelyon p values
correspondingto inferentialstatistics,we also present
effect sizes (Cohen, 1994). For group comparisons,
Cohen's(1969)effectsize statisticd was calculatedas the
differencebetweenthe meanscoreof the groupwith the
greaterscore(orrating)andthegroupwiththelowerscore
(or rating)dividedby the pooledstandarddeviation(also
see Rosenthal& RosnowS1991).Cohen(1969)considered
effect sizes, d of .80 or greateras large effects, those
around.50 as mediumeffects, and those around.20 as
smal]effects.This ruleof thumbhas been used by other
researchers
who haveexaminedeffect sizes in the human
sexualityresearchliterature(Oliver& Hyde, 1993).With
regard to relationshipsbetween continuousvariables
Pearsoncorrelation
coeffecientswerechosenas an indicator of effect size. We chose absolutevalues of .30 or
greateras worthyof commentandinterpretation,
as Cohen
(1992)consideredthis valueto representa mediumeffect
size. The currentsample size was ample for detecting
mediumeffectsizes in thepopulation(Cohen,1992).

Descriptive
Statistics
Amongthe 192respondents,
BMIrangedfrom19.0to 52.4
(M = 25.3, SD = 5.9), with 45 (23.4%)of the women
exceedinga BMIof 27.3 whichis usedto indicatesignificantoverweight
by theNationalCenterforHealthStatistics
(Najjar& Rowland,1987).Self-ratings
of facialattractiveness rangedfrom 1 to 7 with most (60.9%) of the
respondents
ratingthemselvesas aboveaverage(rating> 4).
Self-ratings
of bodilyattractiveness
alsorangedfroml to 7
but only 32.86Ho
of respondents
ratedthemselvesas above
average(rating> 4). Due to the imposedrestriction
on the
ageof therespondents
in thesample,it is notsurprising
that
agewasunrelated
to anyof thesevenattractiveness
orbody
imagevariables(meanabsolutevalueof r= .04, range=
-.08 to .06).Therefore,anyrelationships
hetweenthe measuresof attractiveness
or bodyimageanddatingor sexual
experiencearenotconfounded
by respondents'
age.

Current
Relationship
Status
In consideringrelationshipsbetween the attractiveness
andbody imagevariablesandcurrentrelationshipstatusX
we dichotomizedthe sample into those not currently
involvedin an exclusiverelationshipandthose currently
dating one person exclusively, living with a partner,
engaged,or married.Comparisons
betweenthoserespondentsinvolvedin a relationshipandthosenotinvolvedare
presentedin Table1. Statisticallysignificantdifferences
andsmallto mediumeffect sizes weredemonstrated
with
regardto BMI, experimenter-rated
facial attractiveness,
and self-ratedbodily attractiveness.Comparedto peers
who were not currentlyin a relationship,those respondents currentlyin a relationshipwere relativelysmaller

This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:22:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Body Image and Sexuality

276

Table1. One-WayANOVAsfor Differencesin Attractivenessand Body ImageBetween RespondentsCurrentlyInvolvedin a

Relationship(n = 94) and ThoseWho are Not (n = 98)
Variable
BodyMass Index
Experimenter-Rated
Attractiveness
Self-RatedFacial Attractiveness
Self-RatedBodily Attractiveness
Body Dissatisfaction(EDI)
AppearanceOrientation
Social Avoidancedue to ConcernsAbout Appearance

CurrentlyInvolved
Mean

Not Involved
Mean

24.08
(4 54)
4.14
(.76)
4.89
(1.32)
4.19
(1.32)
39.04
(10.77)
45.62
(8.20)
6.83
(3.81)

26.39
(6.81)
3.88
(.71)
4.69
(1.00)
3.64
(1.33)
40.42
(9.47)
43.41
(7.84)
6.6
(3.44)

7.6288

.39

5.86*

.35

1.86

.20

8.19**

.41

.89

.14

3.64

.27

.11

.05

Note. EDI = Eating DisordersInventory(Garneret al., 1983). Standarddeviationsare shown in parentheses.

*p<.05. **p<.01.

andobjectivelymoreattractive,andperceivedthemselves
as havingmoreattractivebodies.
SexualExperlenceand SexualEsteem
Comparisons
betweenrespondents
with sexualintercourse
experience
andtheirpeerswhowerevirginsarepresented
in
Table2. Statisticallysignificantdifferencesand medium
effectsizeswereevidentonlywithregardto BMIandexperimenter-rated
attractiveness.
Virginswererelativelyheavier
and objectivelyless attractivecomparedto theircoitally
expenencedpeers.Simila;r
comparisons
withregardto oral
sex experiencearepresented
in Tables3 and4. Withregard

to fellatio,as showninTable3, theonlybodyimagevariable

to evidencea statistically
significantdiSerenceanda medium effectsize was experimenter-rated
attractiveness.
Those
respondents
whohadperformed
oralsex for a malepartner
wereratedmoreattractive
comparedto thoserespondents
withoutsuchexpenence.As showninTable4, withregardto
havingeverreceivedoralsex,twobodyimagevarsables
displayedstatistically
significant
differences
andmediumeffect
size:BMIandse]f-rated
bodilyattractiveness.
Womenwho
hadeverreceivedoralsex wererelativelythinnerandperceivedtheirbodiesas moreattractive
comparedto women
withoutsuchoralsex experience.

Table2. One-WayANOVAsfor Differencesin Attractivenessand Body ImageBetween RespondentsWho Had Experienced

SexualIntercourse(n = 144) and ThoseWho Had Not (n = 48)
Variable
Body Mass Index
Experimenter-Rated
Attractiveness
Self-RatedFacial Attractiveness
Self-RatedBodily Attractiveness
Body Dissatisfaction(EDI)
AppearanceOrientation
Social Avoidancedue to ConcernsAbout Appearance
Note.

Had Intercourse
Mean

Virgins
Mean

24.61
(5.42)
4.10

27.18
(6.89)
3.72

(.75)
4.81
(1.04)
3.97
(1 .38)
40.28
(9.85)
45.03
(8.04)
6.65
(3.78)

(.64)
4.73
(.96)
3.73
(1.25)
38.15
( 10.84)
42.85
(8.05)
7.02
(3.13)

EDI = Eating DisordersInventory(Garneret al., 1983). Standarddeviationsare shown in parentheses.

** p < .01.

This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:22:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7.02*t

.43

10.22**

.51

.24

.08

1.16

.18

1.60

.21

2.65

.27

.38

.10

Wiederman and Hurst

277

Table3. One-WayANOVAsfor Differencesin Attractivenessand Body ImageBetweenRespondentsWho Had Performed

Oral Sex (n = 151) and ThoseWho Had Not (n = 41)
Had Given Oral Sex

Had Not Given Oral Sex

Variable

Mean

Mean

Body Mass Index

24.87
(5.42)

26.69
(7.34)

3.10

.31

4.08

3.74

6.82**

.46

(.73)
4.85
(1.04)

( 73)
4.59
{.92)

2.16

.25

3.98
(1.39)

3.66
(1.17)

1.83

.24

40.33
(10.32)

37.59
(9.17)

2.39

.27

AppearanceOrientation

44.95

42.80

2.28

.27

Social Avoidancedue to ConcernsAbout Appearance

(7.73)
6.60
(3.65)

(9.13)
7.24
(3.53)

1.01

.18

Experimenter-Rated
Attractiveness
Self-Rated FacialAttractiveness
Self-Rated Bodily Attractiveness
Body Dissatisfaction(EDI)

Note. EDI = Eating DisordersInventory(Garneret al., 1983). Standarddeviationsare shown in parentheses.

** p < .01.

Last,we consideredthe simplecorrelations

betweenthe
body-image
variablesandscoreson measuresof sexualattitudesandsexualesteem,as well as the lifetimenumberof
sexualintercourse
partners
amongwomenwho hadexpenencedcoitus.Thesecorrelations
are presentedin Table5.
Sexualattitudes
wereunrelated
to anyof theattractiveness
or
body-image
variables.
Forlifetimenumberof sexualpartners
amongnonvirgins,
onlytherelationship
withself-rated
facial
attractiveness
approacheda mediumeffect size. Sexual
esteemscores,however,werepositivelyrelatedto self-rated

facial and bodily attractiveness

and negativelyrelatedto
socialavoidancedue to appearance
concerns.Womenwith
greatersexualesteembelievedthemselvesto be morephysicallyatwactive
andwererelativelyless likelyto avoidsocial
settingsin whichone'sappearance
mightbe a focus.
DISCUSSION
We hypothesizedthat women's physical attractiveness
and body image would be relatedto their relationship

Table4. One-WayANOVAsfor Differencesin Attractivenessand Body ImageBetweenRespondentsWho Had Received

Oral Sex (n = 155) and ThoseWho Had Not (n = 37)
Received Oral Sex

Had Not Received

Variable

Mean

Oral Sex
Mean

Body Mass Index

24.58

28.11

Experimenter-Rated
Attractiveness

(4.88)
4.06

(8.54)
3.80

(.70)
4.83
(1.02)
4.05
(1.35)
39.58
(10.17)
44.84
(7.82)
6.57

(.88)
4.62
(.98)
3.35
(1.21)
40.43
(10.03)
43.03
(9.02)
7.43

Self-Rated Facial Attractiveness

Self-Rated Bodily Attractiveness
Body Dissatisfaction(EDI)
AppearanceOrientation
Social Avoidancedue to ConcernsAboutAppearance

(3.63)

(3.60)

Note. EDI = Eating DisordersInventory(Garneret al, 1983). Standarddeviations are shown in parentheses.
*e p < .01.

This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:22:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

F
11.26**

d
.60

3.76

.35

1.28

.21

8.15*t

.52

.21

.08

1.51

.22

1.68

.24

BodyImageand Sexuality

278

Table5. PearsonCorrelationsBetweenAttractivenessand Body-ImageVariablesand SexualityVariables

Lifetime
Number
of Partners

Attractivenessand
Body-ImageVariables
Body Mass Index
Attractiveness
Experimenter-Rated
Self-RatedFacial Attractiveness
Self-RatedBodily Attractiveness
Body Dissatisfaction(EDI)
AppearanceOrientation
Social Avoidancedue to ConcernsAbout Appearance

.01
. 12
.27**
.16
-.04
.04
-.13

SexualityVariables
Casual Sex
Sexual
Attitudes
Opinion
Survey
.05
-.05
.08
.01
.07
.14
.00

-.01
.02
.09
.05
-.02
.02
-.08

Sexual
Esteem
-. 14
. 18
.47**
.35**
.08
.14
-.26**

Note. EDI = Eating DisordersInventory(Garneret al, 1983). Lifetime Number of Partners= lifetime numberof sexual intercoursepartnersamong
nonvirgins(n = 144). Sexual Opinion Survey = short-formof Sexual Opinion Survey (Fisher et al, 1988). Casual Sex Attitudes= attitudinalitems
from Sociosexual OrientationInventory(Simpson & Gangestad,1991). Sexual Esteem = short-formof the sexual esteem scale from Wiedermanand
Allgeier (1993).
** p < .01.

statusand sexual experieneeas well as to their sexual

esteem.Acrossindicesof heterosexualexperience,some
andbody-imagevariablesevidencedfairly
attractiveness
consistentrelationships,whereasothersdid not. Women
who were relativelyheavier(higherBMI) and ratedas
less facially attractiveby the experimenterswere less
likely to be involvedin a steadydatingrelationshipand
to have had sexual intercourse.Also, heavier women
were less likely to have receivedoral sex from a maleS
andwomenratedas less faciallyattractivewereless likely to have performedoral sex on a male.Are these general relationshipsbetweenbody size and attractiveness
and sexualexperiencedue to a^TacSof opportunity,differentialsexual attitudes or inhibitiondue to self-consciousnesson the partof largerwomen?
Althoughnoneof thesevanouspossibilitiescanbe ruled
outby theresultsof thecurrentstudyalone,we believethe
patternof findingssupportone explanationmorethanthe
sexualattitudesas a posothers.First,considerdifferential
BMI was unrelatedto affectiveorientasible explanation.
or to attitutionto eroticstimuli(erotophobia/erotophilia)
dinalacceptanceof casualsex (see Table5). SimplecorrelationsbetweensexualattitudesandBMIwouldhaveto be
significantif thesesexualattitudeswereto mediatetherelationshipbetweenbody size andsexualexperience(Baron
& KennyS1986). Thus,the relativelack of heterosexual
experienceamongthelargerwomenin thesampledoesnot
womenholding
appearto be dueto heavier,less attractive
morenegativesexualattitudes.
to lifetimenumberof sexSimilarly,BMIwasunrelated
whohad
partnersamongthoserespondents
ualintercourse
andwas unrelatedto sexuexperiencedsexualintercourse
al esteem scores or self-evaluationas a sexual partner
(Table5). Thus,largerwomendid not view themselvesas
less capablesex partners,nordidtheyhavefewerpartners
thresholdwas reached,apparently
once an attractiveness
allowingfor the experienceof sexualintercourse.

As a sidenoteSrecallthatpreviousresearch(e.g. Regan,
thatoverweightwomenareperceived
1996)demonstrated
andasbeingrelashavinglessdatingandsexualexperience
peers.
to average-weight
ativelycoldandasexualcompared
of
Theresultsof thecurrentstudysuggestthatperceptions
lessexperiencemaybe basedon reality,buttheyprovideno
indicationthattheheavierwomenhadmorenegativesexual attitudesor self-viewsas a sexualpartner.
bodysize, andsexual
ArelinksbetweenattractivenessS
experiencedue to greaterinhibitionon the partof larger,
betweenBMIand
women?Therelationships
less attractive
sexualexperiencedidnotappearto be mediatedby a more
generalavoidanceof social settingsover concernabout
Scoreson the relevantmeasureof
physicalappearance:
status
thistendencywereunrelatedto currentrelationship
(see Table1), sexualexperience(see Tables2-4), or sexual esteem(see Table5). Thus,therewas no evidencethat
observedrealtionshipsbetweenbody size and sexuality
weredueto socialinhibitionamongtheheavierwomenor
women.
less attractive
forthecurAlthoughtherearesurelyotherexplanations
rentfindings,we concludethata relativelackof opportubecauseof less interestby
interaction
nityforheterosexual
potentialpartnersmaybe the primaryreasonbehindmost
of the relationshipsbetweenBMI and datingand sexual
by previis furthersupported
experience.Thisexplanation
First,obesewomenareless likeousresearchon marriage.
Must,
ly thannonobesepeersto get married(Gortmaker,
Perrin,Sobol,& Dietz, 1993).Second,increasesin wives'
body weightresultin decreasedsexual interestby husbands.MargolinandWhite(1987) in a three-yearlongisampleof martudinalstudyof a nationallyrepresentative
ried couples,foundthatweightgain and negativebodyshape changes in women resultedin decreasedsexual
interestandsexualsatisfactionamongtheirhusbands,but
suchwasnotthecasewithregardto mens weightgainand
wive'ssexualinterest.

This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:22:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

279

Wiederman and Hurst

facial attractivenessdemonstrateda
Theresultsof thecurrentstudyhighlighttheimportance Experimenter-rated
in sexual
experience(along
to sexualintercourse
of women'sbodyweightandfacialattractiveness
similarrelationship
Notethattheremaybe
to menbeforemarriage.
withBMI;see Table2). However,withregardto cunnilindesirability
weretheonly
a thresholdwith regardto body size and attractiveness gus,BMIandself-ratedbodilyattractiveness
correlates(see Table4). Becausereceivingoral
noteworthy
beyondwhichhavingsexualexperienceis morelikelybut
increasingdegreesof sexualexperiencearenot morelikesex involvesexposingone's genitaliaand midsection(at
wererelatly.Thatis, althoughbodysizeandattractiveness
least) to a partner,and the focus of the activityis the
over bodily attractiveed to virginitystatus(see Table2), BMIandexperimenter- woman'sbody, self-consciousness
of whetheryoung
were unrelatedto lifetimenumberof
ratedattractiveness
ness may be a primarydeterminant
(seeTable5).
amongnonvirgins
partners
enoughto allowcunnilingus.
sexualintercourse
womenarecomfortable
As
Becauseit appearsthatlinksbetweenbodysize andrelaThe resultsof the currentstudyare not deE1nitive.
from
to
a
reladerived
manyof the datain the currentstudywere
tionshipstatusandsexualexperiencemaybe due
theextentof responsebiasdueto socialdesirtive lack of interestby potentialpartners,does this mean
self-reports,
ratingsof
Experimenter
abilityandotherfactorsremainsunknown.In addition,the
thatbody imageis unimportant?
resultsof the currentstudy(whichare basedon young,
were only weaklyrelatedto responfacial attractiveness
White college students)cannotbe generalizedto more
dents'self-ratings(r = .18, ns). Yet, these self-ratingsof
werepositivelyrelatedto lifetimenumfacialattractiveness
maturewomenor to thosewho differwith regardto ethandpositivelyrelated
nicity,educationallevel, and socioeconomicbackground.
berof sex partnersamongnonvirgins
to sexualesteemscoresfortheentiresample.It is interest- Collegewomenmayrepresenta relativelyrestrictedrange
in the body-sizespectrum,even when comparedto the
ing thatwomenrelativelyhigh in sexualesteemwerenot
largerpopulationof womentheirown age. Thatis, obesiobjectivelythinneror ratedas more attractive,yet they
Womenwithrelbelievedthemselvesto be moreattractive.
ty is related to relativelylower socioeconomicstatus
ativelyhigh sexualesteemwereless likelyto avoidsocial
(Sobal & Stunkard,1989) and, comparedto parentsof
settingsin which their physicalappearancemight be a
daughterswho arenot overweight,parentsof overweight
focus.It appearsthatsexualesteemfor womenis at least
daughtersare less likely to financiallysupportcollege
attendance(Crandall,1995). For these reasons,further
partiallybasedon a senseof confidencein one'sownphysPerhapswomenwhoviewthemselvesas
researchis neededinvolvingmoretnaturesamplesdrawn
icalattractiveness.
Onecouldspeculatethatbody
fromthelargercommunity.
relativelymoreattractivehave greaterconfidencein heterosexualinteractionsand accumulaterelativelygreater size has a cumulativeeffect on sexualexperienceamong
singlewomensuchthatan oldersamplemightshoweven
numbersof sex partnersas a result(Trapnellet al., 1997),
thus leadingto increasedsexual esteem. Male attention largerdifferencesin sexualexperiencesbetweennormal
weightandoverweightwomen.
and/orsexualexperiencemay also lead to increasedselfQualitativestudies suggest that body size and body
perhapsthroughfeedbackby
perceptionsof attractiveness,
sexualpartnersor theinferencethatone mustbe relatively image play importantroles in the sexualityof women
(Daniluk,1993),andthatbodysize andbodyimagemay
if she is soughtafterby men.
attractive
of women'sintimate
general
that
it
is
interesting
with certaincharacteristics
image,
interact
Withregardto body
(as measuredby theEDI)was unrelat- relationshipparttlers,such as a criticalstancetowardthe
bodydissatisfaction
overweightfemale partner(Margolin& White, 1987;
ed to datingandsexualexperience.Relativelyhighlevelsof
for
havebecomemoreorlessnormative
bodydissatisfaction
Stuart& Jacobson,1987).Additionalquestionsremain.For
womenin the UnitedStates(Rodinet al., 1984;Silberstein example,are there relationshipsbetweenattractiveness,
et al., 1987).The normativenatureof bodydissatisfaction bodyimage,andsexualexperienceamonglesbianwomen
mayplacerelativelyless emphagiventhatthissubculture
may wash out any potentialrelationshipsbetweenthat
(Heffernan,1994; Siever,
sis on physicalattractiveness
aspect of body image and heterosexualexperience.
to het1994)?Does bodyimageinfluencewomen'ssexualityas a
onentationwas alsogenerallyunrelated
Appearance
genderroles
generalavoidanceof social
functionof women'sadherenceto traditional
erosexualexperience.Similarly,
aboutone's appearance (Martz,Handley,& Eisler,1995)?Are thererelationships
settingsdue to self-consciousness
experience.
to heterosexual
wasunrelated
betweenbodyimageandsexualexperiencethataremediDespitethe relativelackof findingsfor the body-image atedby a historyof physicalor sexualabuse(Andrews,
over one's sexual attractive1995)?Theseandotherrelatedquestionsremainforfuture
variables,self-consciousness
women's
between
research.However,it appearsthat,to understand
ness may be a mediatingfactorin relationships
experibodysize,
sexualityfully,issuesof physicalattractiveness,
women'sbody size, bodyimage,andheterosexual
andbodyimagemustbe considered.
ence. For example,it is interestingthat the only noteworthycorrelateof fellatioexperiencein the currentstudy
(see Table3).
facialattractiveness
REFERENCES
was experimenter-rated
One explanationis thatwomen ratedas more attractivemay
have greatermale attentionand dating experience,leading
to increasedlikelihoodof performingfellatio at some point.

Andersen, B. L., & Cyranowski,J. M. ( 1995). Women's sexuality:

Behaviors,responses,and individualdifferences.Joarnalof Consulting
and ClinicalPsychology,63, 891-906.

This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:22:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BodyImageand Sexuality

280

Andersen, B. L., & LeGrand, J. (1991). Body image for women:

Conceptualization,
assessment,anda testof its importance
to sexualdysfunctionandmedicalillness.The Journal of Sex Research, 28, 457-477.
Andres,R. (1995).Bodyweightandage. In K. D. Brownell& C. G. Fairburn
(Eds.), Eating disorders and obesity: A comprehensive handbook (pp.
65-72). New York:Guilford.
Andrews,B. (1995). Bodily shameas a mediatorbetweenabusiveexperiences anddepression.Journal of Abnownal Psychology, 104, 277-285.
Bailey,S. M., Goldberg,J. P., Swap,W.C., Chomitz,V. R., & Houser,R. F.
(1990). Relationshipsbetweenbody dissatisfactionand physicalmeasurements.International Journal of Eating Disorders, 9, 457461.
Baron,R. M., & Kenny,D. A. (1986).The moderator-mediator
variabledistinctionin social psychologicalresearch:Conceptual,strategic,andstatisticalconsiderations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,
1173-1182.
Bellerose, S. B., & Binik, Y. M. (1993). Body image and sexualityin
oophorectomized
women.Archives of Sexual Behavio; 22, 435459.
Betz, N. E., Mintz,L., & Speakmon,G. (1994). Genderdifferencesin the
accuracyof self-reported
weight.Sex Roles, 30, 543-552.
Brecher,E. M., & Brecher,J. (1986). Extractingvalid sexologicalfindings
fromseverelyflawedandbiasedpopulationsamples.The Journal of Sex
Research, 22,6-20.
Brodie,D. A., & Slade,P. D. (1988). The relationshipbetweenbody image
andbodyfat in adultwomen.Psychological Medicine, 18,623-631.
Brown,T. A., Cash,T. F., & Mikulka,P. J. (1990). Attitudinalbody-image
assessment:Factoranalysisof the Body-Self RelationsQuestionnaire.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 135-144.
Buss,D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating.
NewYork:Basic Books.
Cash,T. F., & Henry,P. E. (1995). Women'sbody images:The resultsof a
nationalsurveyin the U.S.A. Sex Roles, 33, 19-28.
Cohen,J. (1969).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New
York:AcademicPress.
Cohen,J. (1992).A powerprimer.Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
Cohen,J. (1994). The earthis round(p < .05). American Psychologist, 49,
997-1003.
Crandall,
C. S. (1994).Prejudiceagainstfat people:Ideologyandself-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66,882-894.
Crandall,
C. S. (1995). Do parentsdiscriminateagainsttheirheavyweight
daughters?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21,724-735.
Curran,
J. P.,& Lippold,S. (1975).Theeffectof physicalattractionandattitudesimilarityon attractionin datingdyads.Journal of Personality, 43,
528-539.
Daniluk,
J. C. (1993). The meaningand experienceof female sexuality:A
phenomenological
analysis.Psychology of WomenQuarterly, 17,53-69.
Faith,
M. S., & Schare,M. L. (1993). The role of body image in sexually
avoidantbehavior.Archives of Sexual Behavios; 22,345-356.
Feingold,
A. (1990). Genderdifferencesin effectsof physicalattractiveness
on romanticattraction:A comparisonacross five researchparadigms.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 981-993.
Feingold,A. ( 1992). Good-looking people are not what we think.
Psychological Bulletin, 111, 30>341.
Fisher,
W.A., Byrne,D., White,L. A., & Kelly,K. (1988).Erotophobia-erotophiliaas a dimensionof personality.The Journal of Sex Research, 25,
123-151.
Fredrickson,
B. L., & Roberts,T. (1997). Objectificationtheory:Toward
understandingwomen's lived experiences and mental health risks.
Psychology of WomenQuarterly,21, 173-206.
Gangestad,
S. W. (1993). Sexual selection and physical attractiveness:
Implicationsfor matingdynamics.Human Nature, 4, 205-235.
Garner,
D. M. (1991). Eating Disorders Inventory-2: Professional manual.
Odessa,FL:PsychologicalAssessmentResources,Inc.
Garner,
D. M., Olmsted,M. P., & Polivy,J. (1983). Developmentandvalidationof a multidimensional
eatingdisorderinventoryfor anorexianervosaandbulimia.International Journal of Eating Disorders, 2(2), 15-34.
Garrow,
J. S., & Webster,J. (1985).Quetelet'sindex(W/H2)as a measureof
fatness.International Journal of Obesity, 9, 147-153.
Goode,
E., & Preissler,J. (1983). The fat admirer.Deviant Behavior; 4,
175-202.
Gortmaker,
S. L., Must, A., Perrin,J. M., Sobol, A. M., & Dietz, W. H. (1993).
Social and economic consequences of overweight in adolescence and
young adulthood. New England Journal of Medicine, 329, 1008-1012.

Hanna,W. J., Wrate,R. M., Cowen,S. J., & Freeman,C. P. (1995). Body
mass index as an estimateof body fat. InternationalJournalof Eating
Disorders,18, 91-97.
Harris,M. B. (1990). Is love seen as differentfor the obese? Journalof
AppliedSocialPsychology,20, 1209-1224.
Harris,M. B., Walters,L. C., & Waschull,S. (1991).GenderandethnicdiS
ferencesin obesity-related
behaviorsand attitudesin a college sample.
Journalof AppliedSocial Psychology,21, 1545-1566.
Heffernan,K. (1994). Sexualorientationas a factorin riskfor bingeeating
and bulimia nervosa: A review. International Journal of Eatillg
Disorders,16, 335-347.
Jackson,L. A. (1992).Physicalappearanceandgender:Sociobiologicalclnd
socioculturalperspectives.Albany,NY: State Universityof New York
Press.
Kallen,D. J., & Doughty,A. (1984).Therelationshipof weight,the self-perceptionof weightandself-esteemwithcourtshipbehavior.Marriczge
and
FamilyReview,7, 93-114.
Kriss,R. T., & Kraemer,H. C. (1986). Efficacyof grouptherapyfor problems with postmastectomyself-perception,body image, and sexuality.
TheJournalof SexResearch,22, 438451.
MacCorquodale,
P.,& DeLamater,
J. (1979). Self-imageandpremarital
sexuality.Journalof Marriageand the Famil+,41, 327-339.
Margolin,L., & White,L. ( 1987).Thecontinuingroleof physicalattractiveness in marriage.Journalof Marriageand the Family,49, 21-27.
Martz,D. M., Handley,K. B., & Eisler,R. M. (1995). The relationship
betweenfemininegenderrole stress,body image,and eatingdisorders.
Psychologyof WomenQuarterly,19, 493-508.
Miller,C. T.,Rothblum,E. D., Felicio,D., & Brand,P.(1995).Compensating
for stigma:Obese and nonobesewomen's reactionsto being visible.
Personalityand SocialPsychologyBulletin,21, 1093-1106.
Money,J. (1994). Body-imagesyndromesin sexology:Phenomenologyand
classification.Journalof PsychologwandHumanSexuality,6(3), 3148.
Murstein,
B. I., & Holden,C. C. (1979). Sexual behaviorand correlates
amongcollege students.Adolescence,14, 625-639.
Najjar,
M. F., & Rowland,M. (1987). Anthropometric
referencedata clnd
prevalenceof overweight.UnitedStates, 1976-1980. (Vital & Health
Statistics,series] 1, no. 238, PHSPublicationNo.87-1688). Hyattsville,
MD:U.S. Department
of HealthandHumanServices.
Oliver,
M. B., & Hyde,J. S. (1993).Genderdifferencesin sexuality:A metaanalysis.PsychologicalBulletin,114, 29-51.
Regan,
P. C. (1996). Sexualoutcasts:The perceivedimpactof body weight
and gender on sexuality.Journal of Applied Social PsvchologzX,
26,
1803-1815.
Reamy,
K. J., & White,S. E. (1987). Sexualityin the puerperium:
A review.
Archivesof SexualBehavios;16, 165-186.
Rodin,
J., Silberstein,
L., & Striegel-Moore,
R. (1984). Womenandweight:A
normativediscontent.NebraskaSymposium
on Motivation,
32, 267-307.
Rosen,
J. C., Srebnik,D., Saltzberg,E., & Wendt,S. (1991).Developmentof
a Body ImageAvoidanceQuestionnaire.
PsychologicalAssessment,3,
32-37.
Rosenthal,
R., & Rosnow,R. L. (1991). Essentialsof behavioralresearc1l:
Methodsand dataanalysis(2nded.). NewYork:McGraw-Hill
Schumaker,
J. F.,Krejci,R. C., Small,L., & Sargent,R. G. ( 1985).Experience
of lonelinessby obeseindividuals.
PsychologicalReports,57, 1147-1154.
Siever,
M. D. (1994). Sexualorientationand genderas factorsin socioculturallyacquiredvulnerability
to bodydissatisfaction
andeatingdisorders.
Journalof Consultingand ClinicalPsychology,62, 252-260.
Silberstein,
L. R., Striegel-Moore,
R. H., & Rodin,J. (1987). Feelingfit: A
woman'sshame.In H. B. Lewis(Ed.),TheroleoJshamein symptomformation(pp. 89-108). Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Silberstein,
L. R., Striegel-Moore,R. H., Timko,C., & Rodin,J. (1988).
Behavioraland psychologicalimplicationsof body dissatisfaction:Do
men andwomendiffer?SexRoles, 19, 219-232.
Simpson,
J. A., & Gangestad,S. W. (1991). Individualdifferencesin sociosexuality:Evidencefor convergentanddiscriminantvalidity.Journalof
PersonalityandSocial Psychology,60, 870-883.
Snell,
W. E., & Papini,D. R. (1989).The SexualityScale:An instrumentto
measure sexual-esteem, sexual-depression, and sexual-preoccupation.
The Journal of Sex Research, 26, 256-263.
Sobal,
J., Nicolopoulos, V., & Lee, J. ( 1995). Attitudes about overweight and
dating among secondary school students. International Journal of
Obesity, 19, 376-381.

This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:22:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

281

Wiederman and Hurst

Sobal, J., & Stunkard, A. J. (1989). Socioeconomic status and obesity: A
review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 260-275.
Spillman, D. M., & Everington, C. (1989). Somatotypes revisited: Have the
media changed our perception of the female body image? Psychological
Reports, 64, 887-890.
Stelzer, C., Desmond, S. M., & Price, J. H. (1987). Physical attractiveness
and sexual activity of college students. Psychological Reports, 60,
567-573.
Stuart,R. B., & Jacobson, B. (1987). Weight,sex, and marriage:A delicate balance. New York:W.W. Norton & Company
Sullivan, L. A., & Harnish, R. J. (1990). Body image: Differences between
high and low self-monitoring males and females. Journal of Research in
Personality,24, 291-302.
Symons, D. (1995). Beauty is in the adaptationsof the beholder: The evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness. In P. R.
Abramson & S. D. Pinkerton (Eds.), Sexual nature, sexual culture (pp.
80-1 18). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tiggemann, M., & Rothblum, E. D. (1988). Gender differences in social consequences of perceived overweight in the United States and Australia. Sex
Roles, 18, 75-86.

Trapnell,P.D., Meston,C. M., & Gorzalka,B. B. (1997).Spectatoring

andthe
relationship
betweenbodyimageandsexualexperience:Self-focusor selfvalence?The Journal of Sex Research, 34, 267-278.
Vaeth,J. M. (Ed.).(1986).Body image, self-esteem, and sexuality in cancer
patients. Basel,Switzerland:
Karger.
Walsh,A. (1993).Lovestyles,masculinity/femininity,
physicalattractiveness,
and sexual behavior:A test of evolutionarytheory. Ethology and
Sociobiology, 14, 25-38.
Walsh,A. (1995).Parentalattachment,
druguse, andfacultativesexualstrategies. Social Biology, 42, 95-107.
Wiederman,
M.W.(1996).Women,sex,andfood:A reviewof researchon eating disordersandsexuality.The Jounxal of Sex Research, 33, 301-311.
Vlederman,M. W. (1997).The truthmustbe in heresomewhere:Examining
the genderdiscrepancyin self-reported
lifetimenumberof sex partners.
The Journal of Sex Research, 34, 375-386.
Vlederman,M. W., & Allgeier,E. R. (1993). The measurement
of sexualesteem:Investigation
of SnellandPapini's(1989)SexualityScale.Journal
of Research in Personality,27, 88-102.
ManuscriptacceptedNovember 11, 1997

;;;
SEXUALITYIN MID-LIFE
by Stephen B. Levine
Drawingon decades of clinical
practice,Dr.Stephen B. Levine
describes in extraordinarydepth
such topics as psychological intimacy
and development,sexual desire, the
six eras of sexual life, extramarital
affairs,menopause, sexual impairments due to new antidepressants,
sexual decline in the fifties,and other
topics importantto people at mid-life.
This unusuallyfrank,clear, and
compellingvolume also includes a
uniquechapter on being a middleaged therapist.
0-306-45742-3/212

pp./ill./1998/$35.00

SOCIOLEGALCONTROL
OF HOMOSEXUALITY
A Multi-NationComparison

SOURCEBOOKOF
TREATMENTPROGRAMS
FORSEXUALOFFENDERS

edited by Donald J. West and

Richard Green
A comprehensive, up-to-date
examination of worldwide governmental and religious reactions to
issues of homosexual orientation and
behavior. Includes * international
legislation * historical trends * the
effects of fundamentalist religious
movements * and new information
regarding biological factors.
A volume in the series Perspectives
in Sexuality: Behavior, Research,
and Therapy.

edited by W.L. Marshall,

Y.M.Fernandez, S.M. Hudson,
and T.Ward

0-306-45532-3/372

pp./ill./1997/$65.00

Book prices are 20% higher outside US and Canada.

Pr THE.ANGuAGEOFsclENcEn
PLENUM PUBLISHING CORPORATION
lenu"l
233 Spring Street, NewYork, NY 10013-1578
PusLlsHlNGcORPoRmoNJ
(212) 620-8000 / (800) 221-9369

A guide for the design and

implementationof treatmentprograms,
emphasizingclinicalissues over
research,and suggestions fordealing
withtreatment-related
problems.
Describes programsin various
international
settings, withattention
paidto culturallysensitive treatments,
and the needs of variousoffender
subgroups.A volume in the series
AppliedClinicalPsychology.
0-306-45730-X/504 pp./ill./1998/$85.00
text adoption price on orders of six or more
copies: $49.50 each

LOGON . . . WITHPLENUM!
http://www.plenum.com

* e-mail: info6Dplenum.com

This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:22:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions