Elsevier

Body Image

Volume 38, September 2021, Pages 325-333
Body Image

The impact of different responses to negative body talk on body satisfaction, shame, and future negative body talk likelihood: A UK sample

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2021.05.007Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Contrary to previous Australian findings, no difference found across responses.

  • Reassurance (31.41 %) and challenge (29.49 %) were most preferred responses.

  • Qualitative data showed lengthier and more nuanced responses were also preferred.

  • May suggest cultural differences in appearance commentary between Australia and UK.

Abstract

A recent online experiment found that, following a negative body talk induction task, receiving a response of ignoring the comment, compared with reassuring, reciprocating, and challenging, led to worse body satisfaction and socio-emotional outcomes for Australian women. The current online study aimed to replicate and extend this study by examining the effects of these four negative body talk responses on body satisfaction, shame, and future negative body talk likelihood in UK-based women. Participants (N = 156, Mage = 25.29, SDage = 5.64, rangeage = 18–40) recalled a scenario in which they engaged in negative body talk and were randomly assigned to receive one of four responses. Contrary to hypotheses, there were no significant differences in body satisfaction, shame, or future negative body talk likelihood across the four groups. Preferred negative body talk response data were mixed, with challenge and reassurance responses preferred at comparable rates, and just under a quarter of participants preferring a response outside of the original four. Possible explanations, including that the responses used in the original Australasian study may not perfectly correspond with UK women’s experiences of social interactions and heterogeneous motivations for engaging in negative body talk necessitate more nuanced and sophisticated responses, are explored.

Introduction

Negative body talk, which refers to the negative commentary that individuals make about their own weight or body shape (Nichter & Vuckovic, 1994), has become a normative phenomenon in Western cultures, with one study reporting that 96.9 % of women engage in at least one episode per week (Jones, Crowther, & Ciesla, 2014; Martz, Petroff, Curtin, & Bazzini, 2009; Salk & Engeln-Maddox, 2011). Despite often being made with the positive intention of helping someone else feel better about their body, negative body talk is far from innocuous and its overall effect on body image is damaging (Mills & Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, 2018). Cross-sectional studies have found that women who frequently engage in negative body talk are more likely to check their own appearance, make comparisons with body ideals, and have increased body dissatisfaction (Mills & Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, 2016; Shannon & Mills, 2015). Furthermore, based on the findings of prospective studies, two systematic reviews have demonstrated that body dissatisfaction increases due to negative body talk engagement (Mills & Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, 2016; Sharpe, Naumann, Treasure, & Schmidt, 2013). These findings are not surprising given that negative body talk perpetuates negative self-perceptions and perceived pressure to be thin among women (Arroyo & Harwood, 2012). In addition to these negative body image outcomes, negative body talk has also been linked with symptoms of mental health conditions, such as eating disorders, anxiety, and depression (Mills & Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, 2016; Shannon & Mills, 2015).

Given these negative outcomes associated with negative body talk, current national guidelines and interventions urge women to “shut down” or “drop” negative body talk (Rodgers et al., 2018, p.1366; The Butterfly Foundation, 2019, p. 2). To that end, as part of their Fat Talk Free campaign, The Butterfly Foundation (2019) in Australia recommends that women disengage from negative body talk by diverting the conversation to a new topic. Alternatively, it is recommended that women who have made disparaging body-related remarks are complimented on something positive about their personality (The Butterfly Foundation, 2019). In a similar vein, the slogan of the Fat Talk Free Week campaign in the US and the UK was: “Friends don’t let friends fat talk”, which encouraged college women to ban negative body talk in conversations (Rochman, 2010, p. 1). Whilst these approaches recommend disengaging from negative body talk by ignoring, shutting down, or banning conversations involving negative body-related comments, there is no empirical evidence that supports the effectiveness of this strategy in either discouraging negative body talk participation or the associated body image consequences.

Banning, shutting down, or ignoring negative body talk is also not a response that women are typically inclined to offer to one another. Women expect each other to reciprocate self-degrading body talk (e.g., “I should really go on a diet too”), as opposed to ignoring or dismissing it (Britton, Martz, Bazzini, Curtin, & LeaShomb, 2006, p. 6). Other typical responses to negative body talk include positive comments that intend to deny the negative body talk and provide reassurance (e.g., “You are not fat at all.”) (Becker, Diedrichs, Jankowski, & Werchan, 2013, p. 7; Salk & Engeln-Maddox, 2011). Reassuring has also emerged as the most desired responses to negative body talk by young adult women across several studies (Becker et al., 2013; Mills, Mort, & Trawley, 2019; Salk & Engeln-Maddox, 2011). These findings are consistent with the original research on the social phenomenon that identified reassurance-seeking as the primary reason for engaging in negative body talk (Nichter & Vuckovic, 1994).

In addition to research assessing typical and desired responses to negative body talk, a small number of studies have also examined which type of negative body talk responses can effectively prevent the perpetuation of negative body talk and reduce body dissatisfaction. Two of these studies compared challenging negative body talk, as an alternative response, with reciprocating negative body talk (Ambwani, Baumgardner, Guo, Simms, & Abromowitz, 2017; Salk & Engeln-Maddox, 2012). Salk and Engeln-Maddox’s (2012) study examined participants’ reactions to two female confederates’ conversation about an advertisement featuring a fashion model. Participants were randomised into three conditions where they witnessed conversations during which negative body talk was 1) reciprocated, e.g., “Ugh, look at her thighs. Makes me feel so fat. Yeah me too”, 2) challenged, e.g., “I know we all say things like that but I don’t understand why. I just wish we focused on other things”, or 3) no negative body talk occurred (Salk & Engeln-Maddox, 2012, p. 640). Participants in the challenge condition indicated that they were less likely to engage in future negative body talk compared to the “reciprocate” or “no negative body talk” conditions. The challenge condition also resulted in lower levels of body dissatisfaction and guilt compared to the reciprocate condition.

In Ambwani et al.’s (2017) study, participants were randomised into two conditions where they viewed vignettes describing negative body talk between two people, which was either reciprocated or challenged by feminist ideas. These ideas included appreciating one’s body for its functionality, not basing self-worth on appearance, and rejecting societal pressures associated with being thin. Responses included statements such as “It’s not fair to compare ourselves to those models” or “I’ve been trying to focus more on how my body feels” (Ambwani et al., 2017, p. 87). Results indicated that participants who were in the challenge condition reported experiencing less negative affect and lower likelihood of future negative body talk compared to those in the reciprocate condition. Based on this study, as well as Salk and Engeln-Maddox’s (2012) findings, challenging negative body talk appears to be associated with more positive effects compared to reciprocating negative body talk.

Whilst the previously reviewed studies typically compared the effects of two different negative body talk responses, a more recent empirical study by Mills et al. (2019) examined the impact of four distinct negative body talk responses on socio-emotional and body image outcomes in a sample of Australian women. In addition to investigating the effect of challenging, reciprocating, and reassuring negative body talk, this study also examined the impact of ignoring negative body talk on body satisfaction, shame, and perceived social support. Participants were first asked to recall and write about a situation where they had engaged in negative body talk. Participants were then randomly allocated to one of the four groups, where they imagined that someone responded to their negative body talk by either 1) challenging, 2) ignoring, 3) reassuring, or 4) reciprocating it. Mills et al.’s (2019) study showed that participants in the ignore condition felt less supported than participants in the other three conditions, and they experienced a higher level of shame compared to participants in the challenge condition. The findings also indicated that, in comparison to reciprocating negative body talk, ignoring negative body talk resulted in decreased body satisfaction. Critically, in direct contradiction to the recommendation of national guidelines (The Butterfly Foundation, 2019), the findings of this study suggest that ignoring someone’s negative body talk comments has deleterious effects on the individual both in terms of body image and socio-emotional outcomes. However, a key limitation of Mills et al.’s study was the lack of early verification that participants understood the definition of negative body talk as used in the study, resulting in a substantial number of responses referring to related but distinct phenomena, such as weight shaming, that then needed to be removed from analysis. Additionally, Mills et al. did not capture the impact of these four responses on a person’s likelihood of engaging in negative body talk in the future.

The current study has four main purposes. Firstly, given the important implications of Mills et al.’s findings for future negative body talk campaigns and policies, there is a need to replicate this study in other samples. Akin to those in Australia and the US, anti-negative body talk campaigns in the UK (e.g., Fight Fat Talk Campaign; Bell, 2014) have also advised young people to ignore each other’s negative body talk. However, no known studies have investigated the effect of different responses to negative body talk in UK-based samples. Research shows that there are similarities in the appearance culture experienced by adolescent girls in Australia and the UK (Carey, Donaghue, & Broderick, 2013; Evans, Rich, & Holroyd, 2004), as well as similar levels of body image constructs in adult women, including thin ideal internalization and appearance and thinness pressures from the media (Schaefer et al., 2019). Negative body talk is as common in the UK as in Australia and the US (Becker et al., 2013), with results of a previous study showing that 51 % of English women hear negative body talk or feel pressured to engage in negative body talk either “frequently” or “very frequently” (Payne, Martz, Tompkins, Petroff, & Farrow, 2011, p. 562). Therefore, the current study will aim to investigate the effect of the four negative body talk responses (Challenge, Ignore, Reassure, and Reciprocate) on body satisfaction and shame, using a UK-based sample.

Secondly, the current study aims to extend past research (i.e., Ambwani et al., 2017; Salk & Engeln-Maddox, 2012) and assess a broader range of responses and their impact on future negative body talk likelihood. Past research has focused on the challenge and reciprocation responses, whilst the reassurance response has received very little to no research attention (aside from Mills et al., 2019), despite Nichter and Vuckovic’s (1994) original work suggesting that receiving reassurance that one’s body image concerns are unfounded is a likely response that may impact a person’s likelihood of continuing to engage in negative body talk. The reassurance response is thought to satisfy the underlying motivation of the person engaging in negative body talk (Nichter & Vuckovic, 1994), however, this mollification is likely to only be temporary and, through positive reinforcement, may in fact encourage further negative body talk in the future. Additionally, despite numerous international campaigns suggesting ignoring is the ideal method for handling negative body talk in a social context and implying that doing so will help break the cycle, there is limited empirical evidence to support this, highlighting a gap in the literature. Having someone ignore their negative body talk comment would likely make a person feel shunned and potentially guilty, thereby making them less inclined to engage in negative body talk again. However, since disregarding the negative body talk comment is not addressing or even acknowledging the person’s fundamental body image concerns, this reduction in future negative body talk is also unlikely to be particularly meaningful, as compared to the challenge response that attempts to target the maladaptive thinking behind the negative body talk. As such, the current study aims to build upon previous studies and test the impact of four responses (Challenge, Ignore, Reassure, and Reciprocate) on women’s likelihood of future negative body talk.

Thirdly, in an effort to increase our understanding around the realistic nature of responses to negative body talk, the current study will also aim to identify participants’ preferred negative body talk response, whether this be one of the four options used within the study or an entirely different response. And lastly, the current study aims to overcome one of the limitations of Mills et al.’s study by adding a brief check that participants are familiar with what is meant by the term negative body talk, as operationalized in the current study, before proceeding, in the hope that this screens out the majority of participants who have misunderstandings about the phenomenon and have not, in fact, engaged in it.

Given the similarities in body image constructs between Australian and UK women, it was hypothesised that participants in the Ignore condition would experience lower levels of body satisfaction and higher levels of shame compared to participants in the Challenge, Reassure, and Reciprocate conditions, as per Mills et al.’s Australian sample. In line with previous negative body talk response studies, it was also hypothesised that participants in the Challenge condition would indicate lower likelihood of future negative body talk engagement compared to participants in the other three conditions.

Section snippets

Participants

Participants were 156 female volunteers, aged between 18 and 40 years (M = 25.29, SD = 5.64). Facebook advertising targeted women living in the United Kingdom (UK), with the majority of participants (124; 79.49 %) identifying their ethnicity as English, 7.69 % (12) as Scottish, 6.41 % (10) as mixed ethnicities, with part being a UK ethnicity (e.g., French-English), 5.13 % (8) as Welsh, and 1.28 % (2) as Irish. Sixty-one women (40.38 %) reported that they were single and approximately 34.62 % of

Data cleaning

A total of 202 participants completed the survey. Prior to analyses, participants’ responses were screened to check compliance with the inclusion criteria (i.e., that participants were female, aged between 18 and 40, identified as UK in their ethnicity, and could provide an account of a negative body talk experience). As six participants did not indicate their gender, 25 identified their ethnicity as being from outside the UK, and another 15 participants failed to provide an example of engaging

Discussion

The current study aimed to investigate the differences between four different negative body talk responses (Challenge, Ignore, Reassure, and Reciprocate) in terms of their effect on body satisfaction, shame, and likelihood of future negative body talk. The hypotheses were not supported as there was no difference between the four negative body talk response conditions in terms of their effect on post-manipulation body satisfaction, shame, or future negative body talk likelihood. These results

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Jacqueline Mills: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing, Supervision, Formal analysis, Project administration. Adrienn Mata: Data curation, Writing - original draft, Formal analysis. Mathew Ling: Formal analysis, Writing - review & editing. Steve Trawley: Writing - review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Formal analysis.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors report no declarations of interest.

References (41)

  • C.B. Becker et al.

    I’m not just fat, I’m old: Has the study of body image overlooked “old talk”?

    Journal of Eating Disorders

    (2013)
  • P. Bell

    Tyra banks joins the ‘fight fat talk’ campaign to start a new conversation about body image

    (2014)
  • R.N. Carey et al.

    Peer culture and body image concern among Australian adolescent girls: A hierarchical linear modelling analysis

    Sex Roles

    (2013)
  • R.M. Dailey et al.

    Communication with significant others about weight management: The role of confirmation in weight management attitudes and behaviors

    Communication Research

    (2010)
  • K. Drutschinin et al.

    The daily frequency, type, and effects of appearance comparisons on disordered eating

    Psychology of Women Quarterly

    (2017)
  • S.J. Durkin et al.

    An integrative model of the impact of exposure to idealized female images on adolescent girls’ body satisfaction

    Journal of Applied Social Psychology

    (2007)
  • R. Engeln et al.

    The demographics of fat talk in adult women: Age, body size, and ethnicity

    Journal of Health Psychology

    (2016)
  • R. Engeln-Maddox et al.

    Assessing women’s negative commentary on their own bodies: A psychometric investigation of the Negative Body Talk Scale

    Psychology of Women Quarterly

    (2012)
  • J. Evans et al.

    Disordered eating and disordered schooling: What schools do to middle class girls

    British Journal of Sociology of Education

    (2004)
  • A. Field

    Discovering statistics using SPSS

    (2013)
  • Cited by (4)

    View full text