بررسی ارتباط بین خود دلسوزی و تصور ذهنی از بدن در زنان دانشگاه
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|38907||2012||10 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||8756 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Body Image, Volume 9, Issue 2, March 2012, Pages 236–245
Abstract The purpose of the present research was to examine the relationships between self-compassion and women's body image. In Study 1, female undergraduates (N = 142) completed three measures of body image and measures of self-esteem and self-compassion. Results showed that high self-compassion predicted fewer body concerns independently of self-esteem. Moreover, when both self-compassion and self-esteem were included as predictors, self-compassion accounted for unique variance in body preoccupation and weight concerns whereas self-esteem did not. In Study 2, this finding was partially replicated with one component (self-judgment) of self-compassion uniquely predicting body preoccupation in undergraduate women (N = 187). High scores on self-compassion also predicted less eating guilt independent of self-esteem. Additionally, self-compassion was shown to partially mediate the relationship between body preoccupation and depressive symptoms. The findings highlight the possibility that a consideration of self-compassion for body image may contribute to identifying who is most at risk for body/shape concerns.
Introduction Consistent with calls to focus on positive body image (e.g., Grogan, 2010), the research reported here explores whether self-compassion is linked to women's body image and eating attitudes and behaviors when controlling for self-esteem. Self-compassion refers to “being touched by and open to one's own suffering, not avoiding or disconnecting from it, generating the desire to alleviate one's suffering and to heal oneself with kindness. Self-compassion also involves offering nonjudgmental understanding to one's pain, inadequacies and failures, so that one's experience is seen as part of the larger human experience” (Neff, 2003a, p. 87). In other words, being compassionate towards oneself is similar to having compassion towards others, especially in times of distress. We begin by providing background information on the role of self-esteem in women's body image and argue that self-compassion may contribute to understanding the nature of these relationships. Finally, we present data from two studies in support of our stance. The Role of Self-Esteem in Body Image Many studies document the ubiquity of body concerns among women from Western cultures, and within this literature there is a long history of linking self-esteem to women's body concerns. Self-esteem, a general overall evaluation of oneself, has been associated with being dissatisfied with one's appearance such that the more dissatisfied a woman is with her body and/or shape, the lower her self-esteem (e.g., Cash and Fleming, 2002, Cooley and Toray, 2001, Stice, 2002 and Stice and Whitenton, 2002). Whereas much of the research examines the link between self-esteem and body dissatisfaction, a similar pattern emerges when considering positive body image. Specifically, women with high self-esteem tend to evaluate their bodies positively (e.g., Connors and Casey, 2006, Paxton et al., 2006, Swami et al., 2009 and Tiggemann, 2005). Moreover, although the association between self-esteem and body image has largely been examined using non-clinical samples, there is evidence that the severity of symptoms of body dysmorphic disorder is negatively associated with self-esteem (e.g., Phillips, Pinto, & Jain, 2004). Thus, the research demonstrates a link between self-esteem and women's body concerns. Research shows that self-esteem predicts body concerns (e.g., Button, Sonuga-Barke, Davies, & Thompson, 1996) as well as shows that self-esteem is an outcome of body concerns (e.g., Paxton et al., 2006). Thus, low self-esteem is both a predictor and a consequence of body concerns (e.g., Grogan, 2008 and Tiggemann, 2005). Although there remain some questions about the direction of the association between self-esteem and body concerns, the evidence supports a reliable link enough so that some researchers have suggested that interventions aimed at improving self-esteem improve body image concerns. For example, O’Dea (2004) describes a program that focuses on developing young students’ self-esteem with the ultimate goal to prevent body image concerns, and she reports significant improvements in body image for female students. In addition to linking high self-esteem to positive body views, other documented benefits of high self-esteem include happiness (Lucas, Diener, & Suh, 1996), initiative, resilience, and pleasant feelings (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003). Despite these benefits, high self-esteem is related to a number of negative outcomes including distortions in self-knowledge and increased aggression (e.g., Baumeister et al., 2003 and Crocker and Park, 2004), in part because self-esteem relies on meeting standards and favorable comparisons with others (Neff, 2009). One argument is that a healthy perspective on the self should not entail evaluations based on comparisons to others. Neff, 2003a and Neff, 2011a and Neff and Vonk (2009) suggest that feeling good about oneself because the self is better than others is problematic because only a few people can achieve this. According to Leary (1999), self-esteem is a gauge by which people monitor how others appraise them. If one perceives herself or himself as falling short on traits valued by others, self-esteem decreases. As a barometer, self-esteem then is reactive to people's perceptions of their attractiveness to others, and for women, physical appearance is often perceived as being important. This view suggests that self-esteem can be maintained by meeting prescribed standards. Given the cultural standards for women's appearance, viewing oneself positively may be impossible for many women because these standards are unrealistic and, typically, unachievable. Because of the drawbacks of self-esteem, it is not surprising that some researchers like Neff (2003a) propose an approach to the self that is qualitatively different. Self-Compassion As introduced by Neff, 2003a and Neff, 2003b, self-compassion comprises three core components including kindness to one's self versus harsh self-judgment, a recognition that one's experiences are common to all versus a sense of isolation, and a mindful awareness versus over-identification of one's shortcomings. It follows then that those high in self-compassion are accepting of themselves. When they experience failures or perceive themselves as falling short, rather than being self-critical, they treat themselves with kindness and understanding. A growing literature suggests that being compassionate towards oneself is positively associated with desired outcomes and negatively associated with undesired outcomes. For example, self-compassion is positively correlated with social connectedness and life satisfaction (Neff, 2003b) as well as perceived competence and intrinsic motivation (Neff, Hsieh, & Dejitterat, 2005). Additionally, self-compassion is negatively associated with self-criticism, anxiety, and depression (e.g., Leary et al., 2007, Neff, 2003a, Neff, 2003b, Neff, 2009, Neff et al., 2007, Neff and McGehee, 2010 and Neff and Vonk, 2009). The evidence supporting self-compassion as a beneficial approach to the self encompasses circumstances of perceived academic failure (Neff et al., 2005), ego threat (Neff et al., 2007), and daily distress (Leary et al., 2007). In each situation, higher self-compassion predicted fewer negative emotional reactions and, importantly, such reactions did not come about because people high in self-compassion failed to be accountable for their own actions. Rather, those high in self-compassion appear to be accepting of things they cannot change and try to change things that they can (Leary et al., 2007). Not surprising, self-compassion overlaps with self-esteem such that people who are self-compassionate also tend to report having high self-esteem. Indeed, correlation coefficients between self-esteem and self-compassion range from .56 (Leary et al., 2007) to .68 (Neff & Vonk, 2009) suggesting that the two constructs share much in common. Yet, the correlations that are documented between self-compassion and other constructs hold true even when controlling for existing levels of self-esteem. Moreover, self-esteem has significant links to narcissism whereas self-compassion does not, and self-compassion is linked to self-worth stability whereas self-esteem is not (Neff & Vonk, 2009). Thus, self-esteem appears to be reactive to negative events (i.e., by leading people to maintain or enhance their self views when negative events occur), but self-compassion appears to buffer the impact of those negative events (Neff, 2009 and Neff and Vonk, 2009). Although research shows that self-compassion and self-esteem are linked, the patterns of relationships with other constructs suggest that self-compassion is distinct from self-esteem. Neff, 2003a and Neff, 2011a and Neff and Vonk (2009) suggest that when accounting for the overlap between the two constructs, the variance accounted for by self-esteem reflects positivity of self-representations whereas what is accounted for by self-compassion reflects acceptance of oneself. Overall, the literature appears to support the claim that self-compassion benefits people, especially when they experience failures or shortcomings. Given this evidence, it seems reasonable to expect that self-compassion might also be linked to women's body concerns. That is, holding a compassionate view of one's self may contribute to positive evaluations of one's body. There is some research supporting this idea. Specifically, women classified as having a positive body image were described as having compassion towards themselves by accepting their bodies in spite of their perceived appearance flaws, holding favorable attitudes towards their bodies, and rejecting unrealistic media ideals (Wood-Barcalow, Tylka, & Augustus-Horvath, 2010). Furthermore, Neff and Vonk (2009) found that self-compassion predicted self-worth that is less dependent on appearance compared to self-esteem. Additionally, some intervention programs (e.g., O’Dea, 2004 and Steiner-Adair and Sjostrom, 2006) incorporate principles of compassion to promote positive body image amongst young women. For example, the “Everybody's Different” program (O’Dea, 2004) includes activities designed to increase awareness and acceptance that nobody is perfect, which appears to be consistent with the conceptual definition of self-compassion. Further evidence in support of the idea that self compassion is linked to body concerns comes from research showing that self-compassion buffers negative reactions to diet breaking. Adams and Leary (2007) showed that experimentally inducing self-compassion reduced the amount of distress dieters experienced after eating high calorie foods. Moreover, these same participants were less likely to overeat following diet breaking. Participants induced to be self-compassionate experienced less distress and less maladaptive eating likely because they were less judgmental and more accepting of themselves, even when they behaved in ways that were inconsistent with their own goals. More recent studies show that self-compassion is negatively associated with social physique anxiety among women who regularly exercise (Magnus, Kowalski, & McHugh, 2010) as well as among women athletes (Mosewich, Kowalski, Sabiston, Sedgwick, & Tracy, 2011). Mosewich et al. (2011) also showed that self-compassion was negatively related to self-evaluations including body surveillance and body shame even when controlling for self-esteem. Additionally, Dijkstra and Barelds (2011) showed that mindfulness (one aspect of self-compassion) was positively associated with body satisfaction among women. The current investigation was undertaken to further explore the relationship between self-compassion and women's body image. Self-compassion may be one factor that has the potential to offset the negative consequences of being concerned about one's appearance (e.g., Johnson and Wardle, 2005, Paxton et al., 2006, Polivy and Herman, 2002 and Stice and Shaw, 2002). Whereas the extant literature suggests that self-compassion is linked to body concerns, the present study would add to what is currently known in at least three ways. First, the present study examines the overarching construct of self-compassion and, therefore, is not limited to only one aspect and will likely account for more variance in body image than specific aspects of self-compassion would. Second, the present study uses several different operationalizations of body image. Because there are a number of different measures that are used to assess body image related constructs, it is important to document that the relationship is robust across various measures. Third, the present study investigates whether self-compassion mediates the relationship between body preoccupation and depressive symptoms thereby broadening the understanding of why body preoccupation contributes to some outcomes. Overview of the Current Investigation The current investigation aims to contribute to the literature by examining the relationship between self-compassion and women's body image concerns. Although body image concerns also affect men, we limit our focus to women because of the overwhelming evidence that women are socialized to tie their self-worth with their appearance more than men are (Furnham & Greaves, 1994). Indeed, Grabe, Ward, and Hyde (2008) estimate that 50% of North American women are plagued by body image concerns. Although only a subset of these women will experience severe consequences, even minor concerns over one's body may lead to unhealthy eating behaviors, exercise avoidance, continued smoking, and a desire to alter one's appearance through the use of drugs and/or surgery (Grogan, 2010). Our primary goal was to demonstrate the incremental contribution of self-compassion in predicting body image when controlling for self-esteem. In Study 1, we examined this issue using three indices of body image. In Study 2, we examined the contribution of self-compassion for predicting women's self-reported eating behaviors. Our second goal was to determine whether the link between body preoccupation and depressive symptoms is, in part, explained by self-compassion. We specifically focus on depressive symptoms in Study 2 because of depression's prevalence among women (e.g., Culbertson, 1997) and because of the documented relationship between body image concerns and depression (e.g., Stice, Hayward, Cameron, Killen, & Taylor, 2000).
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Results Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among all variables are provided in Table 3. The means for self-esteem and self-compassion for Study 2 were within one standard deviation of those for Study 1. Consistent with Adams and Leary (2007), scores on restricted eating were at the midpoint of the scale and scores for eating guilt were negatively skewed suggesting that women generally feel guilty when eating perceived unhealthy foods. The pattern of correlations was consistent with our expectations such that increased self-compassion was associated with less body preoccupation, less eating guilt, and fewer depressive symptoms. Table 3. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among variables (Study 2). Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. RSE 29.04 5.07 .89 2. SC 2.75 0.59 .64** .92 3. SK 2.66 0.77 .63** .81** .83 4. SJ 3.34 0.76 −.68** −.82** −.70** .78 5. CH 2.92 0.78 .34** .71** .49** −.35** .76 6. ISO 3.28 0.82 −.53** −.77** −.48** .63** −.46** .72 7. M 3.01 0.71 .38** .74** .57** −.41** .62** −.39** .69 8. OI 3.43 0.78 −.35** −.75** −.42** .58** −.43** .56** −.52** .67 9. BSQ 51.36 17.67 −.52** −.40** −.38** .51** −.09 .36** −.14 .27** .94 10. RE 15.82 4.78 −.18* −.12 −.19** .21** .08 .17* −.02 −.02 .52** .83 11. EG 23.05 7.06 −.39** −.37** −.35** .43** −.09 .33** −.21** .27** .76** .67** .90 12. CESD 19.95 11.45 −.71** −.58** −.49** .59** −.27 .48** −.33** .47 .51** .16* .39** .92 Note. N = 187. RSE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; SC = Self-Compassion Scale; SK = Self-kindness subscale; SJ = Self-judgment subscale; CH = Common Humanity subscale; ISO = Isolation subscale; M = Mindfulness subscale; OI = Over-identification subscale; BSQ = Body Shape Questionnaire; RE = Restrictive Eating subscale from the Revised Rigid Restraint Scale; EG = Eating Guilt subscale from the Revised Rigid Restraint Scale; CESD = Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Cronbach's alphas are italicized and presented in the diagonal. * p-Values < .05. ** p-Values < .01. Table options Self-Compassion and Body Preoccupation To determine whether self-compassion predicted body preoccupation over and above self-esteem, a hierarchical regression analysis was specified whereby self-esteem scores were entered into the equation at Step 1 and self-compassion scores were entered at Step 2. The results are shown in Table 4. In the first step of the analysis, self-esteem was a significant negative predictor of body preoccupation. Contrary to what was found in Study 1, the inclusion of self-compassion scores in the second step of the analysis failed to account for any additional variance. One possible explanation for this finding concerns the relatively large correlation between self-esteem and body preoccupation. Although the correlation coefficient did not significantly differ from that uncovered in Study 1, z = 1.25, p = .21, the overlap between the constructs suggests that there is substantially less remaining variance for self-compassion to make a unique contribution. Additionally, the correlation between self-compassion and body preoccupation was substantially smaller than that found for Study 1, although the coefficients did not differ significantly, z = 1.00, p = .32. Table 4. Hierarchical regression analyses summaries for self-esteem and self-compassion predicting body preoccupation (Study 2). Predictor B SEB β t-Values ΔR2 Step 1 .26** RSE −1.80 0.22 −.52 −8.22** Step 2 .01 RSE −1.56 0.29 −.45 −5.45** SC −3.13 2.45 −.11 −1.28 Step 1 .26** RSE −1.80 0.22 −.52 −8.22** Step 2 .07** RSE −1.18 0.31 −.34 −3.81** Self-kindness −1.22 2.32 −.05 −0.53 Self-judgment 5.90 2.60 .25 2.27* Common Humanity 2.94 1.88 .13 1.57 Isolation 1.47 1.87 .07 0.78 Mindfulness 2.33 2.24 .09 1.04 Over-identification 1.02 1.96 .05 0.52 Note. N = 187. RSE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; SC = Self-Compassion Scale. * p < .05. ** p < .01. Table options Because the contribution of self-compassion to body preoccupation was not as expected, we conducted a further analysis using the subscales of the self-compassion measure. The follow-up analysis entailed a hierarchical regression whereby self-esteem was entered in the first step. In the second step, we included the six subscale scores of self-kindness, self-judgment, common humanity, isolation, mindfulness, and over-identification. The results of this analysis are shown in the lower half of Table 4. As before, self-esteem was a significant negative predictor of BSQ scores in the first step. The inclusion of the subscale scores in the second step of the analysis accounted for an additional 7% of the variance. Examination of the regression weights reveals that only the self-judgment subscale was significant in the second step. Thus, when controlling for self-esteem, as self-judgment increased, body preoccupation also increased. Self-Compassion and Restrained Eating We conducted a similar analysis for the two subscales of the Revised Rigid Restraint Scale. The results of the analysis for restrictive eating are presented in Table 5. In the first step of the hierarchical multiple regression equation, self-esteem was a significant negative predictor of restrictive eating, and the inclusion of self-compassion scores at Step 2 failed to account for any additional variance. Interestingly, in Step 2, the regression weight for self-esteem was no longer significant, and the regression weight for self-compassion was also not significant. Table 5. Hierarchical regression analyses summaries for self-esteem and self-compassion predicting restrained eating and eating guilt. Criterion Predictor B SEB β t-Values ΔR2 RE Step 1 .03* RSE −0.17 0.07 −.18 −2.50* Step 2 <.01 RSE −0.17 0.09 −.18 −1.87 SC −0.04 0.77 −.01 −0.05 EG Step 1 .15** RSE −0.54 0.09 −.39 −5.79** Step 2 .03* RSE −0.36 0.12 −.26 −2.94** SC −2.47 1.04 −.21 −2.38* Note. N = 187. RSE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; SC = Self-Compassion Scale; RE = Restricted Eating subscale from the Revised Rigid Restraint Scale; EG = Eating Guilt subscale from the Revised Rigid Restraint Scale. * p-Values < .05. ** p-Values < .01. Table options As can be seen in Table 5, for eating guilt, in the first step, self-esteem was a significant negative predictor. The inclusion of self-compassion scores at Step 2 accounted for significantly more variance. Thus, when controlling for self-esteem, increased self-compassion was associated with less guilt following eating foods perceived to be unhealthy. Self-Compassion as a Mediator To address whether the link between body preoccupation and depressive symptoms was, in part, explained by women's level of self-compassion, we used regression analyses to test mediation following Baron and Kenny's (1986) recommendations. In the first regression analysis, body preoccupation (B = 0.33, SE = 0.04, t = 8.02, p < .01) significantly predicted depressive symptoms, F(1,186) = 64.24, p < .01, adj. R2 = .25. In a second regression equation, body preoccupation (B = −0.01, SE < .01, t = −5.86, p < .01) significantly and negatively predicted self-compassion, F(1,186) = 34.31, p < .01, adj. R2 = .15. In a third regression equation, self-compassion (B = −11.26, SE = 1.15, t = −9.77, p < .01) was a significant negative predictor of depressive symptoms, F(1,186) = 95.36, p < .01, adj. R2 = .34. In the final analysis, both body preoccupation (B = .21, SE = .04, t = 5.43, p < .01) and self-compassion (B = −8.76, SE = 1.17, t = −7.49, p < .01) significantly predicted depressive symptoms, F(2,185) = 69.71, p < .01, adj. R2 = .42. Importantly, the reduction of .1158 in the size of the regression coefficient for body preoccupation from the third equation (B = .33) to the last equation (B = .21) was significant with a 95% CI of .07 to .17 (z = 4.59, p < .01). As can be seen in Fig. 1, self-compassion, in part, accounted for the relationship between body preoccupation and depressive symptoms. Relationship between body preoccupation and depressive symptoms as mediated by ... Fig. 1. Relationship between body preoccupation and depressive symptoms as mediated by self-compassion. The top portion of the figure represents the results of a simple regression analysis whereas the bottom portion represents the mediation model. The values are (standardized) Beta coefficients and all were significant, p < .01.