Advertisement

Sex Roles

pp 1–11 | Cite as

Psychometric Properties of the Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (OBCS) in Spanish Preadolescents

  • Alvaro SiciliaEmail author
  • Manuel Alcaraz-Ibáñez
  • Antonio Granero-Gallegos
  • María-Jesús Lirola
  • Rafael Burgueño
Original Article
  • 16 Downloads

Abstract

Objectification theory postulates that the body is constructed as a sexual object and is subject to observation and evaluation in such a way that a person may feel that their body is an object. The purpose of the present study was to adapt and validate the Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (OBCS) to use with Spanish preadolescents. A total sample of 816 students, aged between 10 and 14 years-old, participated in the study. The sample was randomly split into two halves, and the psychometric properties of the OBCS were examined through a series of exploratory and then confirmatory factor analyses. The results supported a 12-item three-factor correlated model (body surveillance, body shame, and appearance control beliefs). The model structure was invariant across participants’ gender. Suitable values for internal consistency and temporal stability were obtained. Body surveillance and body shame negatively predicted self-esteem and positively predicted social physique anxiety, whereas appearance control beliefs positively predicted self-esteem and negatively predicted social physique anxiety. The present study provides evidence of the validity and reliability of an abbreviated version of the OBCS in Spanish preadolescents. This abbreviated version of the OBCS may allow researchers and practitioners to explore some body critical experiences and beliefs about appearance control among Spanish female and male preadolescents.

Keywords

Objectification Ideal body Adolescence Body image 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was carried out with the aid received from the Research Plan and Transfer of the University of Almería (PPUENTE2019/009), Spain.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Alvaro Sicilia, Manuel Alcaraz-Ibáñez, Antonio Granero-Gallegos, María Jesús Lirola, and Rafael Burgueño declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11199_2019_1043_MOESM1_ESM.docx (28 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 27.5 kb)

References

  1. Alhija, F. N.-A., & Wisenbaker, J. (2006). A Monte Carlo study investigating the impact of item parceling strategies on parameter estimates and their standard errors in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(2), 204–228.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1302_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Calogero, R. M., Tantleff-Dunn, S., & Thompson, J. K. (2011). Self-objectification in women: Causes, consequences, and counteractions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen, F. F., & Russo, N. F. (2010). Measurement invariance and the role of body consciousness in depressive symptoms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(3), 405–417.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01585.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Costello, A., & Osbourne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.Google Scholar
  6. Dakanalis, A., Timko, A. C., Clerici, M., Riva, G., & Carra, G. (2017). Objectified body consciousness (OBC) in eating psychopathology: Construct validity, reliability, and measurement invariance of the 24-item OBC scale in clinical and nonclinical adolescent samples. Assessment, 24(2), 252–274.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115602553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fleiss, J. L. (2011). Design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  8. Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Howard, M. C. (2016). A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of current practices: What we are doing and how can we improve? International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 32(1), 51–62.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2015.1087664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lindberg, S. M., Hyde, J. S., & McKinley, N. M. (2006). A measure of objectified body consciousness for preadolescent and adolescent youth. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(1), 65–76.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00263.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Longo, Y., Alcaraz-Ibáñez, M., & Sicilia, A. (2018). Evidence supporting need satisfaction and frustration as two distinguishable constructs. Psicothema, 30(1), 74–81.  https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.367.Google Scholar
  12. McKinley, N. M. (1998). Gender differences in undergraduates’ body esteem: The mediating effect of objectified body consciousness and actual/ideal weight discrepancy. Sex Roles, 39(1/2), 113–123.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018834001203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McKinley, N. M. (2006). Longitudinal gender differences in objectified body consciousness and weight-related attitudes and behaviors: Cultural and developmental contexts in the transition from college. Sex Roles, 54(3–4), 159–173.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9335-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The Objectified Body Consciousness Scale: Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20(1996), 181–215.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00467.x
  15. Meade, A. W., & Kroustalis, C. M. (2006). Problems with item parceling for confirmatory factor analytic tests of measurement invariance. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 369–403.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105283384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moradi, B., & Huang, Y.-P. (2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women: A decade of advances and future directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(2008), 377–398.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00452.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moradi, B., & Varnes, J. R. (2017). Structure of the Objectified Body Consciousness Scale: Reevaluated 20 years later. Sex Roles, 77(5–6), 325–337.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0731-x.
  18. Morin, A. J. S., Marsh, H. W., & Nagengast, B. (2013). Exploratory structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed., pp. 395–436). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Motl, R. W., & Conroy, D. E. (2000). Validity and factorial invariance of the Social Physique Anxiety Scale. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32(5), 1007–1017.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-200005000-00020.
  20. Moya-Garófano, A., Megías, J. L., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., & Moya, M. (2017). Spanish version of the Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (OBCS): Results from two samples of female university students. Revista de Psicología Social, 32(3), 362–394.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2017.1292700.
  21. Muñiz, J., Elosua, P., & Hambleton, R. K. (2013). Directrices para la traducción y adaptación de los tests: Segunda edición [Guidelines for translating and adaptating tests: Second edition]. Psicothema, 25(2), 151–157.  https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.24.Google Scholar
  22. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2015). Mplus version 7: User’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  23. Noll, S. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). A mediational model linking self-objectification, body shame, and disordered eating. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 623–636.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00181.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Raykov, T. (2004). Point and interval estimation of reliability for multiple-component measuring instruments via linear constraint covariance structure modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 452–483.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 151–161.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201272002.
  26. Roszkowski, M. J., & Soven, M. (2010). Shifting gears: Consequences of including two negatively worded items in the middle of a positively worded questionnaire. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(1), 117–134.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930802618344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sáenz-Álvarez, P., Sicilia, Á., González-Cutre, D., & Ferriz, R. (2013). Psychometric properties of the Social Physique Anxiety (SPAS-7) in Spanish adolescents. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 16(86), 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2013.86.
  28. Schaefer, L. M., Harriger, J. A., Heinberg, L. J., Soderberg, T., & Thompson, J. K. (2017). Development and validation of the Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire-4-revised (SATAQ-4R). International Journal of Eating Disorders, 50(2), 104–117.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22590.
  29. Stapleton, L. M. (2006). Using multilevel structural equation modeling techniques with complex sample data. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), A second course in structural equation modeling (pp. 345–383). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. Van den Brink, F., Vollmann, M., Sternheim, L. C., Berkhout, L. J., Zomerdijk, R. A., & Woertman, L. (2018). Negative body attitudes and sexual dissatisfaction in men: The mediating role of body self-consciousness during physical intimacy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(3), 693–701.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1016-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vangeel, L., Vandenbosch, L., & Eggermont, S. (2018). The multidimensional self-objectification process from adolescence to emerging adulthood. Body Image, 26, 60–69.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.05.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wong, N., Rindfleisch, A., & Burroughs, J. E. (2003). Do reverse worded items confound measures in cross-cultural consumer research? The case of the material values scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 72–91.  https://doi.org/10.1086/374697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Woods, C. M. (2006). Careless responding to reverse-worded items: Implications for confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 28(3), 186–191.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-005-9004-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yu, C. Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Facultad de Eduación, Centro de Investigación en Salud y Administración PúblicaUniversidad de AlmeríaAlmeríaSpain

Personalised recommendations