“Only Girls Who Want Fat Legs Take the Elevator”: Body Image in Single-Sex and Mixed-Sex Colleges
- 1.4k Downloads
Because women at single-sex colleges are constantly surrounded by other women with whom they can visually compare themselves, and because we believed that physical appearance-based social comparison would impact body ideals and self-objectification, we predicted that students at a women’s college would endorse thinner body ideals and display more self-objectification as compared to female students at a mixed-sex college, and that these differences would be especially prominent between upper grade level students. Surveys were completed by 175 undergraduate female students at a women’s college and a mixed-sex college located in the same U.S. Midwestern city. Results were opposite of what we predicted; women at the women’s college were more likely to endorse larger body ideals, whereas women at the mixed-sex college were more likely to endorse thinner ideals. As predicted, there was a significant difference in scores between the upper college year students; lower college year students did not show significant differences in ideals, suggesting that although female students may enter college with similar body ideals, 4 years in a mixed-sex or single-sex setting can drastically alter how women think about body types. There were no differences between schools for self-objectification or physical appearance social comparison, and physical appearance social comparison did not correlate to body ideals. Taken together, this pattern of results suggests that social comparison does not influence body ideals, but rather, other characteristics of a single-sex and mixed-sex environment do. What these characteristics may be (e.g. presence of men, exposure to counterstereotypic role models) are discussed.
KeywordsBody image Women’s colleges Single-sex schooling Body dissatisfaction Social comparison
- Dion, K. L., Dion, K. K., & Keelan, J. P. (1990). Appearance anxiety as a dimension of social-evaluative anxiety: Exploring the ugly duckling syndrome. Contemporary Social Psychology, 14, 220–224.Google Scholar
- Flicek, K., & Urbas, B. (2003). Coed versus single-sex residence halls: Correlates of disordered eating behavior. UW-L Journal of Undergraduate research, 6, 1–6.Google Scholar
- Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 269–284. doi:10.1037/h0090332.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Heinberg, L. J., & Thompson, J. K. (1992). Social comparison: Gender, target importance ratings, and relation to body image disturbance. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 335–344.Google Scholar
- Kessels, U., & Hannover, B. (2008). When being a girl matters less: Accessibility of gender-related self-knowledge in single-sex and coeducational classes and its impact on students’ physics-related self-concept of ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 273–289. doi:10.1348/000709907X215938.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Digest of education statistics: 2010. U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/
- Shomaker, L. B., & Furman, W. (2007). Same-sex peers’ influence on young women’s body image: An experimental manipulation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26. doi:871-895.10.1521/jscp.2007.26.8.871.
- Stunkard, A. J., Sorensen, T., & Shulsinger, F. (1983). Use of the Danish adoption register for the study of obesity and thinness. In S. Kety (Ed.), The genetics of neurological and psychiatric disorders (pp. 115–120). New York: Raven.Google Scholar
- Thompson, J. K., Heinberg, L. J., & Tantleff, S. (1991). The physical appearance comparison scale (PACS). Behavior Therapy, 14, 174.Google Scholar
- Williamson, D. A., Davis, C. J., Bennett, S. M., Goreczny, A. J., & Gleaves, D. H. (1989). Development of a simple procedure for assessing body image disturbances. Behavioral Assessment, 11, 433–446.Google Scholar