Body Image 33 (2020) 90–100

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Body Image
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bodyimage

Meta-analysis of gender differences in body appreciation

Jinbo He a , Shaojing Sun b,∗ , Hana F. Zickgraf c , Zhicheng Lin a,∗ , Xitao Fan a
a
School of Humanities and Social Science, Chinese University of Hong Kong (Shenzhen), Shenzhen, China
b
School of Journalism, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
c
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: There are a number of studies that have conducted comparisons of body appreciation between males
Received 25 June 2019 and females. However, findings are largely inconsistent, making it unclear whether there are actual
Received in revised form 22 February 2020 gender differences in body appreciation. With a meta-analytic approach, the current study quantitatively
Accepted 22 February 2020
reviewed and synthesized previous findings, published up to May 2019, on gender differences in body
Available online 6 March 2020
appreciation. After searching and screening potential studies in four databases (i.e., PubMed, PsycINFO,
Web of Science, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global), we identified 40 relevant articles published
Keywords:
from 2008 to 2019. A random-effects model reveals an overall estimate of gender difference in body
Body appreciation
Gender difference
appreciation of d = 0.27 (95 % CI: 0.21, 0.33; p < .001); that is, males generally have a higher level of body
Meta-analysis appreciation than females, with a small effect size. Survey method, type of sample (cohorts), and age
Systematic review were identified as significant moderators that have contributed to the variability in previous findings.
Future research and interventions in body appreciation may consider gender differences in their designs.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction studies have shown that body appreciation is closely associated

Historically, research on body image largely focused on the
negative or pathological aspects of body image (e.g., body dissatis-
faction, body shame, and body preoccupation). In contrast, positive
body image has received less research attention. Positive body
image is considered not just the inverse of negative body image
but a distinct construct with its own unique components (Tylka,
2011). These include: favorable opinions (e.g., “I feel good about
my body.”), acceptance (e.g., “despite its flaws, I accept my body
for what it is.”), respect of one’s body (“I’m attentive to my body’s
needs.”), as well as protective cognitive styles that reject unreal-
istic body appearance ideals (e.g., idealized media imagery). These
key components have been incorporated into the Body Appreci-
ation Scale (BAS; Avalos, Tylka, & Wood-Barcalow, 2005) as well
as its follow-up version (BAS-2; Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015).
However, the literature on body appreciation is relatively small,
reflecting only 14 years of empirical study.
Ample evidence has suggested that body dissatisfaction and
body appreciation, though inversely correlated with one another,
are distinct constructs: Body appreciation is not just the absence
of body dissatisfaction (Tiggemann & McCourt, 2013). Previous
∗ Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: shaojingsun@gmail.com (S. Sun), zclin@cuhk.edu.cn (Z. Lin).
with well-being after controlling for other body image constructs
(e.g., body dissatisfaction and body esteem; Avalos et al., 2005;
Davis, Fowler, Best, & Both, 2019; Swami, Tran, Stieger, & Voracek,
2015; Tylka & Kroon Van Diest, 2013). Moreover, numerous stud-
ies have shown body appreciation to be inversely related to various
negative mental and physical health outcomes (e.g., Gillen, 2015;
Marta-Simões, Ferreira, & Mendes, 2017; Ramseyer Winter, Gillen,
Cahill, Jones, & Ward, 2019; Ramseyer Winter, O’Neill, & Omary,
2017). Existing research tends to show that positive body image
is related to key variables (e.g., self-esteem, life satisfaction) asso-
ciated with positive psychological and health outcomes for both
men and women (Tiggemann, 2015). These correlates of positive
body image, however, may manifest and function differently across
gender. For instance, Kling, Hyde, Showers, and Buswell’s (1999)
meta-analysis concluded with a small, but statistically significant,
effect size of gender difference in global self-esteem connoting
body satisfaction, with males scoring higher than females. Thus,
it is plausible to reason that the relationship between positive
body image and its correlates may vary by gender. Such a specula-
tion, though contingent on specific correlates, echoes Calogero and
Thompson’s call for further attention to gender differences in body
image, as such differences account for a variety of psychological dis-
orders and other health consequences. For example, Gillen (2015)
found that positive body image was significantly associated with

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.02.011
1740-1445/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J. He et al. / Body Image 33 (2020) 90–100
a host of health indicators (e.g., less depression, high self-esteem,
fewer unhealthy dieting behaviors).
Gender differences in body image, especially negative body
image, have been well documented in extant literature, showing
that males and females tend to possess different perceptions of,
beliefs about, and behaviors toward their own bodies (Calogero
& Thompson, 2010). For example, in contrast to the finding that
the most consistent appearance ideal for females is thinness, there
is a culture-conditioned preference for a lean and muscular body
type for males (Grogan, 2016). Media is an important contribu-
tor to the gender differences in ideal body type, with idealized
images of females as unrealistically slim and males as not only
slender but also muscular (Franchina & Coco, 2018). In contrast
to females, therefore, males could be dissatisfied with their own
bodies because of a drive for thinness, as in anorexia nervosa, or a
drive for muscularity, as in muscle dysmorphia (Murray & Touyz,
2012).
Moreover, females, compared with males, are more frequently
exposed to idealized body images in daily life, with the images
being more homogenous, featuring primarily young, thin, and
attractive ideals, compared with the less well-defined and more
heterogeneous images for males (Buote, Wilson, Strahan, Gazzola,
& Papps, 2011). With the nearly single-standard ideal, females are
more likely than males to engage in upward social comparison.
Such upward social comparison has been shown to lead to body
dissatisfaction, with the effect being stronger for females than for
males (Myers & Crowther, 2009). Recently, upward social com-
parisons have been shown to be inversely associated with body
appreciation among females, particularly while being exposed to
images of thin ideals (Watson, Murnen, & College, 2019). The neg-
ative effect that upward social comparisons may have on body
appreciation could be stronger for females than for males, if we
assume that the aforementioned differential norms and evalua-
tive mechanisms about body dissatisfaction apply to the scenario
of body appreciation.
A potential gender difference in body appreciation has also been
implicated in intervention research. Guest et al. (2019) reviewed 15
studies and concluded that existing interventions using intuitive
eating, cognitive behavioral therapy, self-compassion, and exer-
cise are effective in promoting positive body image for women,
but not for men. A similar gender difference was found for ado-
lescents. For example, in a school-based intervention to improve
body image (“In Favor of Myself”), Golan, Hagay, and Tamir (2014)
observed that girls were more responsive to the intervention than
boys. In other words, there may be gender differences in sensitivity
to interventions that aim to enhance positive body image. Address-
ing this difference in sensitivity requires a better understanding of
whether and how positive body image forms differently in males
and in females. For example, one reason for this gender disparity
in sensitivity to intervention could be that females may have lower
body appreciation than males to begin with and, therefore, have
more room to improve in response to interventions. Furthermore,
studying gender differences in body appreciation may inform inter-
ventions aimed at improving body image by targeting males and
females differently.
So far, research on gender differences in body appreciation is
not consistent. A number of studies have reported that males have
a higher level of body appreciation than females (e.g., Alcaraz-
Ibanez, Cren Chiminazzo, Sicilia, & Teixeira Fernandes, 2017; Atari,
2016; Gillen & Dunaev, 2017), with a comparable number of stud-
ies showing that males and females have similar levels of body
appreciation (e.g., Brown, 2009; Marta-Simões, Ferreira, & Mendes,
2016; Meneses, Torres, Miller, & Barbosa, 2019), and still one recent
study reporting a higher level of body appreciation in females
than in males (Jovic, Sforza, Jovanovic, & Jovic, 2017). Some of
the variability in prior findings may be explained by factors that
91
moderate gender differences (e.g., cohort effects, socio-economic
status, and ethnicity; Kertechian & Swami, 2017). Indeed, as noted
by Tiggemann (2015), the development and formation of posi-
tive body image may be modulated by diverse factors, particularly
social identities, one of which is gender. Since individuals often are
embedded in multiple social identities (e.g., ethnicity, gender), gen-
der differences in positive body image could be moderated by other
identity-related factors. For example, Tylka and Wood-Barcalow
(2015) reported smaller gender differences in community samples
than in college samples, and suggested that cohort effects might
contribute to the inconsistency in prior research. Therefore, it is
prudent to investigate gender differences not in isolation but along
with potential moderators.
In sum, the inconsistencies in prior research present a great
obstacle in understanding gender differences in body appreciation.
The important question we address here is whether, and to what
extent, males and females differ in body appreciation, and what
factors may moderate, amplify, attenuate, or conceal the potential
gender differences. Meta-analysis is an ideal method for synthesiz-
ing group differences, as well as identifying potential factors that
may contribute to the inconsistency or heterogeneity in previous
findings (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2011). Thus, the
current study adopted a meta-analytic approach and attempted to
synthesize the magnitude and direction of potential gender differ-
ences in body appreciation, and to identify potential moderators of
gender differences.
1.1. Potential factors related to inconsistent findings
1.1.1. Region
Different regions may have distinct cultures, which may affect
what body ideals one is exposed to, how one attends to and
absorbs media information, and consequently how one evaluates
her/his own body (Calogero & Thompson, 2010). For example, Asian
culture values interdependence, and those with Asian culture back-
ground appear to be highly aware of the social norms pertaining
to body ideal and, furthermore, to embark on social comparisons
in reference to those norms (White & Lehman, 2005). Such social
comparisons can affect one’s perception and satisfaction of body
image (Myers & Crowther, 2009). Therefore, we explore whether
region (e.g., Americas, Europe, or Asia) moderates the relationship
between gender and body appreciation.
1.1.2. Type of sample
Different sample features may be related to conflicting find-
ings on gender differences in body appreciation. For instance,
with an adolescent sample, Lunde et al. (2013) found a large gen-
der difference in body appreciation. With a community sample
of adults, however, Swami, Barron, Weis, and Furnham (2016))
did not detect a significant gender difference. Moreover, Tylka
and Wood-Barcalow (2015) showed that gender differences in
body appreciation were smaller in community samples than in
college samples. Sample characteristics (e.g., college vs. commu-
nity sample) speak to the strictness of a participant’s immediate
situation—such as the behavioral restriction within the living
community—which may affect social comparison (Baldwin &
Mussweiler, 2018) and moderate the relation between gender and
body appreciation. Thus, it is important to explore whether the type
of sample or cohort may moderate the relationship between gender
and body appreciation.
1.1.3. Measure of body appreciation
The BAS and the BAS-2 are the two major scales used to mea-
sure body appreciation. The BAS is the first psychometrically sound
measure of body appreciation. The BAS-2 improves upon the first
version by eliminating sex-specific items and body-dissatisfaction
92 J. He et al. / Body Image 33 (2020) 90–100

based language. Furthermore, unlike the BAS, the BAS-2 is shown to publication bias (Ferguson & Brannick, 2012). We therefore exam-
be unidimentional and invariant across sample types and, impor- ine whether type of publication may moderate the relation between
tantly, also between genders. Therefore, it is possible that gender gender and body appreciation.
differences as measured using the BAS might result from differen-
tial item performance, which reflects the quality of the instrument
2. Method
but not actual gender differences. We therefore include measures
of body appreciation as a potential moderator.
2.1. Selection of studies
1.1.4. Survey method
A literature search was conducted for studies that had exam-
The increasing popular implementation of online research has
ined gender differences in body appreciation published up to May
raised questions about the equivalence of survey modes (e.g.,
2019. A computer-based search was conducted using PubMed,
paper-and-pencil vs. online) as well as the characteristics of the
PsycINFO, Web of Science, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
sample (e.g., from MTurk). Indeed, survey modes—web-based
Global. Records containing the term “body appreciation” in their
questionnaires vs. paper-based questionnaires—can influence par-
titles or abstracts were located. Studies were included in the meta-
ticipants’ responses to certain body-image related items, such as
analysis if they met the following criteria: (1) was written in
self-report of being fat or thin (Denscombe, 2006). Similarly, Myers
English, as previous studies showed that there was nearly no evi-
and Crowther (2009) found that the effect of social comparison on
dence of a systematic bias from English language restriction in
body dissatisfaction was more pronounced when social compari-
meta-analyses (e.g., Morrison et al., 2012); (2) was published in
son was measured through self-report survey than other methods.
peer-reviewed journals or unpublished dissertations; (3) included
Simply speaking, survey method can influence the measurement
comparisons between males and females in body appreciation, and
and study of social comparison. Furthermore, considering the cen-
effect size (Cohen’s d) was reported or could be computed based on
tral role social comparison plays in body appreciation (Callan, Kim,
the information provided in the article.
& Matthews, 2015; Duffy, Smith, Terhanian, & Bremer, 2005), we
Of note, since we only aimed to generalize our results to the gen-
deem it important to explore whether survey method (e.g., Inter-
eral population, but not clinical populations, we decided to exclude
net vs. in-person survey administration) may moderate the relation
studies using samples with physical/medical conditions. Moreover,
between gender and body appreciation.
the two identified studies using clinical samples to study body
appreciation had different physical conditions (amputation vs. aes-
1.1.5. Age
thetic rhinoplasty) in their samples (Farhat-ul-Ain & Fatima, 2016;
Existing research has shown that the magnitude and direction
Naraghi & Atari, 2015); thus, it might be questionable to combine
of gender differences in body dissatisfaction may change across
the two studies and compare the pooled result with that derived
adolescence, young adulthood, and middle age. For example, in
from general samples. Therefore, in line with Karazsia, Murnen, and
a 20-year longitudinal study, the percentage of males expressing
Tylka (2017), we excluded these two studies using samples with
body dissatisfaction (specifically weight dissatisfaction) increased
physical/medical conditions.
slightly from late adolescence to midlife, whereas the percentage
We did not include unpublished findings except for disserta-
of females with body dissatisfaction did not show a clear change
tions for the following reasons. Schmucker et al. (2017) reviewed
during the same time interval (Keel, Baxter, Heatherton, & Joiner,
past systematic reviews and meta-analyses and found that very
2007). In another 3-wave longitudinal study, Bearman, Presnell,
few of them suffered from overestimating treatment effects when
Martinez, and Stice (2006) found a significant interaction between
excluding unpublished literature. Therefore, they suggested that
age and gender on adolescents’ body dissatisfaction. Specifically,
meta-analysts consider “time, effort and cost” when adding unpub-
girls tended to undergo an increase in body dissatisfaction across
lished literature to a meta-analysis. On the other hand, according to
time, whereas boys tended to experience the highest dissatisfaction
Moyer Schneider, Knapp-Oliver, and Sohl (2010), unpublished doc-
in early adolescence. Therefore, age may also moderate the relation
toral dissertations, as compared with other forms of unpublished
between gender and body appreciation.
or gray literature, are more worthy of being included in systematic
reviews because of their relatively easy access, low bias, and thor-
1.1.6. BMI
ough presentation of findings. Ferguson and Brannick (2012), after
For both men and women, BMI is negatively associated with
systematically researching publication bias in psychological sci-
body appreciation (e.g., Gillen & Dunaev, 2017; Razmus & Razmus,
ence, found that dissertations, as indexed unpublished studies, may
2017; Swami, Hwang, & Jung, 2012). However, there is no consen-
better represent the missing studies than nonindexed unpublished
sus on the direction and magnitude of the gender difference in this
studies. Thus, as in a previous meta-analysis on body dissatisfaction
association; some studies found a stronger association between
(Karazsia et al., 2017), we included dissertations as the only unpub-
BMI and body appreciation in men than in women (e.g., Swami,
lished data source. In addition, in the current meta-analysis, when
Weis, Barron, & Furnham, 2018), whereas other studies found the
the same data set was reported in two publications (e.g., Halliwell,
opposite (e.g., Ng, Barron, & Swami, 2015). A recent meta-analysis
Jarman, Tylka, & Slater, 2017; Halliwell, Jarman, Tylka, & Slater,
revealed a negative association between body appreciation and BMI
2018), we compared the two publications and chose the one that
with a small effect size in males but a moderate one in females
provided gender differences in body appreciation and/or reported
(He, Sun, Lin, & Fan, 2020 under review); that is, compared with
more detailed information about the sample characteristics.
females, males’ body appreciation might be less negatively affected
by increasing BMI. Therefore, it seems possible that the gender dif-
ference in body appreciation might be more pronounced for higher 2.2. Coding of studies
BMI than lower BMI.
Two trained research assistants independently coded all stud-
1.1.7. Type of publication ies. Before starting formal coding, the two coders were trained by
The present meta-analysis included both journal articles and learning to code a set of articles that had already been expert-
unpublished dissertations. Previous studies showed that effect coded for another study. After becoming familiar with coding
sizes reported in unpublished dissertations tend to be smaller than articles for meta-analysis, the coders began the formal coding. The
those reported in published journal articles, potentially reflecting final intercoder reliability ranged from .89 to 1.00 (Krippendorff’s
 J. He et al. / Body Image 33 (2020) 90–100 93

alpha). Discrepancies between the raters were resolved through

discussions with the first and second authors. The following infor-
mation was extracted from each of the included studies: author
(s) and publication year; type of publication (journal or disserta-
tion); region (America, Europe, or Asia); survey method (online or
paper–pencil); type of sample (primary/middle/high school, col-
lege, or community); sample size; mean age of participants; mean
body mass index (BMI) of participants; measure of body apprecia-
tion (BAS or BAS-2); and Cohen’s d or the information for computing
Cohen’s d. For included studies that did not directly report Cohen’s
d, means and standard deviations of body appreciation for men and
women were extracted and used to calculate d. Where necessary,
we changed the sign of published d such that for all effect sizes, a
negative value of d reflected higher body appreciation in women,
and a positive value of d reflected higher body appreciation in men.

2.3. Assessment of study quality

Quality assessment for the included studies was conducted by

the first two authors of this paper independently. Discrepancies of
the quality scores were later resolved through discussion between
the two evaluators. Specifically, we adapted the tool that was used
in Chen, Cai, He, and Fan (2019) for assessing study quality for gen- Fig. 1. Study selection flowchart.
der differences in life satisfaction. This adapted tool includes four
questions to assess the quality of the selected studies in terms of
specification and definition of population, representativeness of the pairwise comparisons to examine the differences between the lev-
sample, validity of measuring instrument, and approach for assess- els within the moderator. To control for the Type 1 error rate, we
ing gender difference (see Table A1 in Appendix A). used Bonferroni corrections in post-hoc pairwise comparisons.
Publication bias was assessed by inspecting the symmetry of the
2.4. Data analyses funnel plot (Duval & Tweedie, 2000), as well as by using Egger’s lin-
ear regression test, which quantifies the estimated bias as reflected
All the data analyses were conducted via R 3.5.2 (R Core Team, in the funnel plot, with a non-significant p value (i.e., greater than
2018) with the package of metafor (Viechtbauer, 2010). We con- .050) indicating insufficient evidence for publication bias (Egger,
ducted three major sets of meta-analyses: (1) mean effect size Smith, Schneider, & Minder, 1997).
analyses, (2) heterogeneity tests, and (3) moderator analyses. First,
to estimate an overall mean effect size, we implemented a random-
3. Results
effects model because meaningful variation in effect sizes between
studies was anticipated (Lawson, Hook, & Farah, 2018). The inter-
3.1. Study selection
pretation of the effect-size of Cohen’s d was based on Cohen (1992):
0.20 as the cutoff for a small effect, 0.50 for a medium effect, and
The process of selecting the studies in this meta-analysis is
0.80 for a large effect.
graphically described in Fig. 1. The initial search identified 2805
Second, testing the presence or absence of unexplained hetero-
records from the four databases. After removing duplicates, 1769
geneity is a crucial step in meta-analysis. Both random sampling
studies remained. One hundred and forty-three studies were
error (i.e., within-study variability) and systematic study fea-
included in the full-text review after exclusion based on titles and
tures (e.g., characteristics of samples, selection of measurement
abstracts according to the criteria described in the Method sec-
instruments, publication type) could contribute to the hetero-
tion. Of the 143 full texts, 40 were identified as having met the
geneity among studies. The results of the heterogeneity test
selection criteria. Furthermore, the reference lists of all the selected
directly influence the selection of statistical models, fixed-effects
articles were checked for additional relevant studies, which yielded
vs. random-effects, as applied to the analysis of effect sizes. The
no additional records. Among the 40 articles, six contained multiple
Cochrane Q statistic and the I2 index are commonly used for
sub-studies with independent samples (Hill, Ogletree, & McCrary,
assessing the significance of unexplained heterogeneity (Higgins,
2016; Kertechian & Swami, 2017; Lemoine et al., 2018; Soulliard,
Thompson, Deeks, & Altman, 2003). The Q statistic informs the
Kauffman, Fitterman-Harris, Perry, & Ross, 2019; Swami, Weis et al.,
presence or absence of significant heterogeneity; I2 identifies
2018; Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015), resulting in 51 independent
the extent of such heterogeneity (Huedo-Medina, Sánchez-Meca,
comparisons of body appreciation between males and females. The
Marín-Martínez, & Botella, 2006). According to Higgins et al. (2003),
details of the 40 articles included in this meta-analysis are pre-
I2 values of 25 %, 50 %, and 75 % indicate low, moderate, and high
sented in Table 1.
heterogeneity, respectively.
Third, moderator analyses were conducted to explore the fac-
tors that might have contributed to the heterogeneity in previous 3.2. Descriptive characteristics of the studies included
findings. The following potential moderators were examined: pub-
lication type, region, survey method, type of sample (cohort), The 40 selected articles involved a total of 21,257 participants
measures of body appreciation, publication year, mean age, and with their ages ranging from 9 to 91 years old (Halliwell et al., 2018;
mean BMI. The explained variance R2 was computed to assess the Meneses et al., 2019). The dates of publications ranged from 2008
proportion of heterogeneity explained by each moderator. When to 2019. The reported effect size (Cohen’s d) of gender differences
a statistically significant moderating effect was found for a cate- in body appreciation ranged from -0.20 (Jovic et al., 2017) to 1.08
gorical moderator with more than 2 levels, we turned to post-hoc (Soulliard et al., 2019), with a positive effect size indicating higher
 94
Table 1
Study characteristics.

Author (s) and year Publication type Region Survey method Type of sample Sample size Percent of White Mean age Mean BMI Measures Cohen’s d

Alcaraz-Ibanez et al., 2017 1 4 2 1 840 0.00% 15.50 21.87 2 0.48

Atari, 2016 1 4 2 2 1093 0.00% 25.87 23.69 2 0.12
Brown, 2009 2 1 2 2 228 59.20 % 22.07 n/a 1 0.03
Davis et al., 2019 1 1 1 n/a 448 86.40% 28.79 26.43 2 0.16
Dumitrescu et al., 2008 1 2 2 2 178 n/a 19.31 n/a 1 0.05
Ellis-Ordway, 2016 2 1 2 3 128 94.50 % 45.00 29.84 1 0.04
Gillen and Dunaev, 2017 1 1 2 2 261 44.00% 20.16 24.28 1 0.46
Gonzalez-Jimenez, 2016 1 2 1 2 320 n/a 26.91 n/a 2 0.18
Halliwell et al., 2017 1 2 2 1 344 n/a 9.98 n/a 2 0.22
Hill et al., 2016a1 1 1 2 2 132 54.00% n/a n/a 1 0.57
Hill et al., 2016a2 1 1 2 2 168 54.00% n/a n/a 1 0.28
Jáuregui-Lobera & Bolaños-Ríos, 2011 1 2 2 1 85 0.00% 17.40 n/a 1 0.59
Jáuregui-Lobera, Bolaños-Ríos, Santiago-Fernández, 1 2 2 1 312 0.00% 14.81 n/a 1 0.29
Garrido-Casals, & Sánchez, 2011
Jovic et al., 2016 1 2 2 3 622 100.00% 42.30 24.34 2 −0.20
Kertechian & Swami, 2017a1 1 2 2 2 326 n/a 21.33 21.82 2 0.29
Kertechian & Swami, 2017a2 1 2 2 2 326 n/a 21.33 21.82 2 0.22
Lemoine et al., 2018a1 1 2 1 1 129 n/a 14.40 19.61 2 0.47
Lemoine et al., 2018a2 1 2 1 1 513 n/a 15.00 20.89 2 0.66

J. He et al. / Body Image 33 (2020) 90–100

Lemoine et al., 2018a3 1 2 1 1 370 n/a 15.50 21.68 2 0.68
Lunde, 2013 1 2 2 1 110 100.00% 16.90 n/a 1 0.75
Luu, 2014 2 1 1 3 289 30.40% 18.87 23.59 1 0.31
Marta-Simoes et al., 2016 1 2 2 3 155 n/a 21.60 22.63 2 0.17
Menesses et al., 2019 1 2 2 3 202 n/a 70.70 26.98 2 0.11
Mutale, Dunn, Stiller, & Larkin, 2016 1 1 2 2 190 76.90 % n/a 23.42 1 0.16
Ng et al., 2015 1 3 2 2 2403 0.00% 23.52 20.75 1 0.15
Razmus and Razmus, 2017 1 2 2 3 385 100.00% 35.38 23.91 2 0.00
Soulliard et al., 2019a1 1 1 1 2 79 81.00% 19.51 23.63 2 1.08
Soulliard et al., 2019a2 1 1 1 2 175 82.30 % 19.51 24.17 2 0.40
Swami et al., 2012 1 3 2 2 267 0.00% 22.35 20.27 1 0.38
Swami, Henry, Peacock, Roberts-Dunn, & Porter, 2013 1 2 2 3 1200 54.00% 24.23 n/a 1 0.27
Swami and Ng, 2015 1 3 2 2 874 0.00% 19.97 20.35 2 0.18
Swami, Barron et al., 2016a 1 1 1 3 399 81.70% 34.55 26.62 2 −0.01
Swami, 2016b 1 2 2 3 138 73.20 % 38.57 n/a 2 0.42
Swami, Ng, & Barron, 2016c 1 2 1 3 380 84.30 % 36.90 n/a 1 0.29
Swami, von Nordheim et al., 2016d 1 3 2 3 345 0.00% 22.41 21.00 2 0.16
Swami et al., 2017 1 2 1 3 1148 88.00% 34.87 25.95 2 0.32
Swami, Barron, & Furnham, 2018a1 1 2 1 2 52 82.10% 20.92 20.67 2 0.31
Swami, Barron et al., 2018a2 1 2 1 2 54 82.10% 20.92 20.67 2 0.52
Swami, Barron et al., 2018a3 1 2 2 3 61 92.60% 33.52 25.02 2 0.05
Swami, Barron et al., 20188a4 1 2 2 3 63 92.60% 33.52 25.02 2 −0.43
Swami, Barron et al., 2018a 1 3 1 3 629 0.00% 32.81 24.74 1 0.09
Swami, Todd et al., 2019b 1 3 2 3 475 0.00% 23.52 23.52 2 0.09
Todd, Aspell, Barron, & Swami, 2019 1 2 1 3 646 92.40% 38.92 27.25 2 0.47
Tylka and Kroon Van Diest, 2013 1 1 1 2 1200 81.70% 20.45 24.61 1 0.36
Tylka & Homan, 2015a 1 1 1 2 406 88.50 % 19.62 23.03 1 0.49
Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b1 1 1 1 2 675 79.10% 20.34 24.58 2 0.27
Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b2 1 1 1 2 263 81.00% 20.43 24.67 2 0.58
Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b3 1 1 1 3 317 79.80% 32.89 26.86 2 −0.11
Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b4 1 1 1 3 382 71.90 % 33.38 26.68 2 0.26
Van Diest and Tylka, 2010 1 1 2 2 238 91.60% 20.87 24.81 1 0.42
Watson et al., 2019 1 1 1 3 195 72.30 % 28.48 25.89 2 0.31

Notes: Author (s) and year: a, b, c, d denote that same author(s) published different articles in the same year; a1, a2, b1, b2, b3, and b4 denote that multiple independent samples (or studies) were reported in the same article;
Publication type: 1 = journal, 2 = dissertation; Region: 1 = America, 2 = Europe, 3 = Asia; Survey method: 1 = Online, 2 = Paper-pencil; Type of sample: 1 = primary, secondary or high school; 2 = college; 3 = community; Measure:
1 = Body Appreciation Scale, 2 = Body Appreciation Scale-2; n/a = not available.
 J. He et al. / Body Image 33 (2020) 90–100
Fig. 2. Forest Plot of the studies included.
levels of body appreciation in males than females. The descriptive
characteristics of the studies are shown in Table 1.
3.3. Assessment of study quality
Based on the adapted tool from Chen et al. (2019), most studies
(90 %) had adequate definitions of their study populations, a small
number of studies (12.5 %) used representative samples, nearly all
studies (97.5 %) used tools with at least validity or reliability infor-
mation reported, and all studies (100 %) used the same tool (BAS or
BAS-2) to assess body appreciation in males and females. The details
of the quality assessment are presented in Table A1 in Appendix A.
3.4. Overall analysis
A random-effects model was used to estimate the average effect
size and its 95 % confidence interval. Results indicated a small but
significant effect size, with the pooled d = 0.27 (95 % CI: 0.21, 0.33;
p < .001). The forest plot is described in Fig. 2. However, substantial
heterogeneity was also identified, with Q(50) = 189.78 (p < .001) and
I 2 = 76.01 %; that is, 76.01 % of the total observed variability across
the studies could be attributed to between-study differences.
3.5. Moderator analyses
The results of moderator analyses are shown in Table 2. Over-
all, results indicated that four variables contributed significantly to
the heterogeneity of effect sizes: survey method (Q = 4.45, p < .050)
accounting for 9.20 % of the total heterogeneity; type of sample
(Q = 19.89, p < .001) accounting for 36.63 %; type of sample exclud-
ing samples from primary/middle/high schools (Q = 6.69, p < .010)
95
accounting for 11.64 %; and mean age (Q = 13.10, p < .001) explain-
ing 29.11 %.
Specifically, for survey method, the pooled d from online surveys
(d = 0.34, 95 % CI: 0.25, 0.43, p < .001) was larger than that from
paper–pencil surveys (d = 0.21, 95 % CI: 0.13, 0.29, p < .001). For
type of sample (cohort), the pooled d from primary/middle/high
school samples (d = 0.50, 95 % CI: 0.36, 0.64, p < .001) was the largest,
followed by that from college samples (d = 0.30, 95 % CI: 0.22, 0.38,
p < .001), with the pooled d from community samples being the
lowest (d = 0.15, 95 % CI: 0.07, 0.23, p < .001)1 . Mean age negatively
predicted gender differences (B = -0.01, 95 % CI: -0.02, -0.01, p <
0.001). Other moderators were not significant (see Table 2).
3.6. Publication bias and sensitivity analysis
The funnel plot (see Fig. 3) was symmetric. Moreover, Egger’s
linear regression test revealed that Z = 1.28, p = .201, which was
not significant (i.e., greater than .050). Thus, there is little evidence
that the current results are affected by publication bias.
Following the same procedure used in Chen et al. (2019), we
compared the results by including and excluding the five studies
with relatively low scores on quality assessment (i.e., a total score
of 2): the pooled d when including the five studies [d = 0.27 (95 %
CI: 0.21, 0.33; p < .001)] was nearly the same as the pooled d when
excluding the five studies [d = 0.28 (95 % CI: 0.21, 0.35; p < .001)].
1
Post-hoc pairwise comparisons: For primary/middle/high school vs. college
samples, Q = 7.14 (p < .010); for college vs. community samples, Q = 6.69 (p < .010);
and for primary/middle/high school vs. college samples, Q = 16.96 (p < .010). All
tests were statistically significant at the significance level of 0.02 with a Bonferroni
correction (0.05/3 ≈ 0.02).
96 J. He et al. / Body Image 33 (2020) 90–100

Table 2
Moderator analyses.

k Parameter Z 95 % CI Q df R2
SE
Lower limit Upper limit

Publication type 1.05 1 0.00%

Journal 49 d = 0.28*** 0.03 8.63 0.21 0.34
Dissertation 3 d = 0.14 0.13 1.02 −0.12 0.40
Region 2.78 2 3.38%
America 20 d = 0.31*** 0.49 6.20 0.21 0.40
Europe 24 d = 0.28*** 0.46 6.38 0.19 0.37
Asia 7 d = 0.16* 0.75 2.13 0.01 0.30
Survey method 4.45* 1 9.20 %
Online 22 d = 0.34*** 0.04 7.52 0.25 0.43
Paper-pencil 29 d = 0.21*** 0.04 5.26 0.13 0.29
Type of sample 19.89*** 2 36.63 %
Primary/middle/high school 8 d = 0.50*** 0.07 7.24 0.37 0.64
College 22 d = 0.30*** 0.04 7.25 0.22 0.38
Community 20 d = 0.15*** 0.04 3.54 0.07 0.23
Type of sample without primary/middle/high school # 6.69** 1 11.64 %
College 22 d = 0.30*** 0.04 7.28 0.22 0.38
Community 20 d = 0.15*** 0.04 3.55 0.07 0.23
Measure 0.49 1 0.00%
Body Appreciation Scale 19 d = 0.30 0.04 5.79 0.20 0.40
Body Appreciation Scale-2 32 d = 0.25 0.04 6.39 0.18 0.33
Publication year 51 B = 0.003 0.01 0.24 −0.02 0.03 0.06 1 0.00%
Mean age 48 B = -0.01*** 0.003 −3.62 −0.02 −0.005 13.10*** 1 29.11 %
Mean BMI 39 B = -0.03 0.02 −1.95 −0.063 0.0002 3.79 1 6.49%

Notes: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. # For analyzing the cohort effect with only colleges and communities, 8 studies from primary/middle/high schools were removed.

results underscore females’ vulnerability to body-image related

Fig. 3. Funnel plot for checking publication bias.
Therefore, the five studies showed a minimal effect on the overall
integrated effect size.
4. Discussion
This study quantitatively summarized the literature prior to May
2019 on gender differences in body appreciation between males
and females using meta-analytic techniques. Based on a random-
effects model, our results suggested a small gender difference, with
males showing a higher level of body appreciation than females.
Three significant moderators (survey method, type of sample, and
mean age) were found to have contributed to the heterogeneity
across previous findings.
The finding that females had a lower level of body appreci-
ation than males helps to reconcile previous conflicting results
on gender differences in body appreciation. Together with the
previous finding that females tend to show higher levels of neg-
ative body image/body image dissatisfaction (Grogan, 2016), these
psychopathology (Lewinsohn, Seeley, Moerk, & Striegel-Moore,
2002; Striegel-Moore et al., 2009). Since body appreciation has been
shown to protect females against body dissatisfaction (Andrew,
Tiggemann, & Clark, 2015; Halliwell, 2013), and since body image
disturbances are closely associated with various negative mental
and physical health outcomes (e.g., eating disorders), special atten-
tion should be paid to body appreciation in females. As noted in
the Introduction, body appreciation is a unique construct beyond
the mere absence of body dissatisfaction; females could simultane-
ously experience both body dissatisfaction and body appreciation
regarding their body (Tiggemann, 2015). Therefore, although avail-
able interventions for females’ body image generally concentrate
on either negative body image or, less often, positive body image,
we suggest that future interventions, in order to be more effective,
may consider focusing on both at the same time, that is, to reduce
body dissatisfaction and to improve body appreciation.
Gender differences in body appreciation were moderated by
survey method. Gender differences reported in online surveys were
greater that those from paper-pencil surveys. According to studies
comparing these two survey methods (Gnambs & Kaspar, 2015;
Wood, Nosko, Desmarais, Ross, & Irvine, 2006), online surveys
led to significantly less missing data than paper-pencil surveys,
especially when the survey is relatively long or contains sen-
sitive questions. Past research also showed that the degree of
anonymity and response format influenced participants’ endorse-
ment of sensitive topics such as body dissatisfaction and disordered
eating (Anderson, Simmons, Milnes, & Earleywine, 2007; Lavender
& Anderson, 2008). For example, Anderson et al. (2007) found
that both males and females showed higher rates of reporting
endorsement of certain sensitive items (e.g., purgative behav-
iors) on unmatched count questionnaires—which ensure true
anonymity—than on conventional standard questionnaires. Sim-
ilarly, Lavender and Anderson (2008) observed that when being
assessed with unmatched count survey as opposed to traditional
standard survey, females tended to be more likely to endorse sen-
sitive items such as adopting strict dieting to lose weight. Likewise,
when ensured better anonymity, males were more likely to endorse
sensitive items such as using steroids to become muscular. Thus,
there could be reason to believe that, for personally sensitive feel-
 J. He et al. / Body Image 33 (2020) 90–100
ing and information with regard to body appreciation, findings
based on online survey could be more accurate than those with
paper-based survey. If so, the large gender difference revealed by
the studies with online survey (d = 0.34) could be a more accu-
rate reflection of gender difference in body appreciation than that
(d = 0.21) from the studies with traditional paper-based survey.
With regard to the type of sample pertaining to the cohort
effects (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015), we found that this mod-
erator explained about 37 % of the total heterogeneity across
previous findings. Specifically, samples from primary/middle/high
schools showed the largest gender difference, which is generally
consistent with previous research on negative body image. That
is, although both boys and girls started to become dissatisfied
with their bodies in preadolescence (Burgess, Grogan, & Burwitz,
2006; Grogan, 2016), the trajectories of body dissatisfaction are
more stable for boys than for girls from adolescence to young
adulthood, with girls showing increased body image dissatisfaction
in later adolescence (Bucchianeri, Arikian, Hannan, Eisenberg, &
Neumark-Sztainer, 2013). The earlier onset of puberty in girls than
boys, combined with girls’ higher risk of precocious puberty, might
contribute to the greater gender differences in body appreciation
in adolescents (Patton & Viner, 2007). Moreover, as exemplified
by gendered toys and clothing, beginning in childhood, girls are
already sexualized by the media and in online and in-person inter-
actions (American Psychological Association, 2008). The experience
of sexual objectification may contribute to greater gender dif-
ferences in school-aged and adolescent children. The differences
between school- and adult community samples might also be
partially explained by pubertal development during adolescence,
which heightens the impact of gender differences in sexual objec-
tification (e.g., Lindberg, Grabe, & Hyde, 2007). Indeed, adolescence
is a sensitive period; objectification experiences and sexual harass-
ment have been found to contribute to the development of eating
disorder symptoms in early adolescence. How objectification expe-
riences and sexual harassment directly affect body appreciation
remains an important question for future research (Petersen &
Hyde, 2013).
As already noted above, in line with the results presented
in Tylka and Wood-Barcalow (2015), the present study found a
smaller gender difference in body appreciation in community sam-
ples than in college samples. The difference is likely, in part, due
to age, as college samples are predominantly made up of young
adults. In particular, female college students, compared with their
male peers, are more likely to experience rape (Herbenick, Fu,
Dodge, & Fortenberry, 2019) and other sexual assaults (Mellins
et al., 2017), with an estimated 20 % of college women experienc-
ing some form of sexual assault by their senior year (Muehlenhard,
Peterson, Humphreys, & Jozkowski, 2017). Gender differences in
sexual assaults are particularly pronounced in the college con-
text, which is conducive to sexual assault because of the higher
rates of alcohol consumption by college students than non-students
from the community context (Abbey, Zawacki, Buck, Clinton, &
McAuslan, 2004). Thus, gender and age differences in the expe-
rience of sexual assault may help to explain the greater gender
differences in body appreciation observed in college students than
in community samples.
Relatedly, the mean sample age emerged as a significant moder-
ator, explaining about 30 % of the total heterogeneity across studies.
That is, gender difference in body appreciation decreased with the
increase of age. A number of studies have explored the effect of age
on positive body image among women. For example, Tiggemann
and McCourt (2013) reported that older women showed higher lev-
els of body appreciation than younger women. Tiggemann (2015)
reasoned that as they age, women are becoming less likely to attach
physical appearance to their self-worth, and more likely to appre-
ciate the health and functionality of their body. For men, only a few
97
studies reported an association between age and body appreciation.
For example, Swami, von Nordheim, and Barron (2016) reported
that age was not correlated with men’s body appreciation. Thus,
it could be that body appreciation increases with age for females
but remains stable for males, so that the gender differences in body
appreciation become smaller with increasing age. Whether this is
indeed the case warrants further examination in future studies with
a longitudinal design.
Additionally, it should be noted that there could be a confound-
ing effect between the moderators of the type of sample (cohort)
and mean age. Specifically, in the current meta-analysis, we com-
pared gender differences in primary/middle/high school samples,
college samples, and community samples. Clearly, the three types
of sample also differ in age (the mean ages of the samples in pri-
mary/middle/high schools, colleges, and communities were 14.94,
21.34, and 34.12 years, respectively). Consequently, even though
both moderators were found to be significant, the effects could be
confounded by the age effect (the mean age), the cohort effect (the
type of sample), or both.
The current meta-analysis synthesized findings up to May 2019.
To be more up-to-date, we reviewed the literature one more time
at the end of the peer review process, around February 2020. We
were able to locate eight new studies on gender differences in body
appreciation (i.e., Góngora, Licea, Chams, & Thornborrow, 2020;
Junqueira et al., 2019; Namatame, Yashima, & Sawamiya, 2020;
Quittkat, Hartmann, Düsing, Buhlmann, & Vocks, 2019; Soulliard
& Vander Wal, 2019; Swami, Barron et al., 2019; Vadivel, Kate, &
Zeba, 2019; Wang, Fardouly, Vartanian, & Lei, 2019). A majority
of these new studies (five in total) reported significantly higher
levels of body appreciation in males than in females (d = 0.20 ∼
0.72; Góngora et al., 2020; Junqueira et al., 2019; Namatame et al.,
2020; Swami, Barron et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019), with two stud-
ies showing no significant gender differences (Soulliard & Vander
Wal, 2019; Vadivel et al., 2019) and still one study reporting a
higher level of body appreciation in females than in males (d = -
0.18; Quittkat et al., 2019). Thus, the effect size distribution of the
newly published studies was generally in line with the previous
studies as synthesized in this meta-analysis. Moreover, when these
eight studies were included in the overall effect size estimation, the
pooled d was 0.26 (95 % CI: 0.21, 0.32; p < .001), practically the same
as that found in the current meta-analysis (i.e., without including
the eight new studies), d = 0.27 (95 % CI: 0.21, 0.33; p < .001). There-
fore, the overall estimate of gender differences found in the current
meta-analysis is robust, barely affected by the eight new studies
published between May 2019 and February 2020.
The present study has some limitations. First, as we did not
solicit ongoing studies or unpublished studies from researchers
in body image, it is possible that some potential relevant stud-
ies were missed because they were not included in the databases
searched. Second, although the current study identified three
significant moderators, it is possible that we neglected some mod-
erators because they were not addressed in the coded studies.
One such potential moderator is sexual orientation. For exam-
ple, Alleva, Paraskeva, Craddock, and Diedrichs (2018) found that
body appreciation was lower among sexual minority men com-
pared with heterosexual men, whereas Ramseyer Winter, Satinsky,
and Jozkowski (2015) reported higher levels of body appreciation
among sexual minority women than heterosexual women. It seems
that sexual minority women and heterosexual men have higher
levels of body appreciation than heterosexual women and sex-
ual minority men. Thus, sexual orientation can potentially interact
with gender to affect body appreciation. Also of note, the current
meta-analysis only addressed the differences in body appreciation
between male and female identified samples, the majority of which
were likely cisgender. Therefore, gender minority status is another
potential moderator that should be explored in future research.
98 J. He et al. / Body Image 33 (2020) 90–100

Currently, it remains unclear whether, and how, body appreciation Table A1 (Continued)
differs between cis- and transgender men and women, or as com- Study names Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total
pared with nonbinary individuals. Indeed, in the studies included
Razmus and Razmus, 2017 1 0 1 1 3
in the current meta-analysis, only one reported information about Soulliard et al., 2019 1 0 1 1 3
sexual orientation and/or gender identity (i.e., Watson et al., 2019), Swami et al., 2012 1 0 1 1 3
precluding us from analyzing their potential moderating effects on Swami et al., 2013 1 0 1 1 3
gender differences in body appreciation. We suggest future studies Swami and Ng, 2015 1 0 1 1 3
Swami, Barron et al., 2016a 0 0 1 1 2
to include information on sexual orientation and gender identity. A
Swami, 2016b 1 0 1 1 3
future update of the current meta-analysis can then be conducted Swami, Ng et al., 2016c 0 0 1 1 2
when more research collecting and reporting sexual orientation Swami, von Nordheim et al., 2016d 1 0 1 1 3
and gender identity becomes available. Swami et al.,2017 1 1 1 1 4
Swami, Weis et al., 2018 1 0 1 1 3
In conclusion, the current meta-analysis revealed that males had
Swami, Khatib et al., 2019a 1 0 1 1 3
a higher level of body appreciation than females, and this difference Swami, Todd et al., 2019b 1 0 1 1 3
was small in effect size. Gender differences in body appreciation Todd et al., 2019 1 1 1 1 4
were found to be moderated by survey method (online vs. paper Tylka and Kroon Van Diest, 2013 1 0 1 1 3
pencil), type of samples (primary/middle/high school vs. college Tylka & Homan, 2015a 1 0 1 1 3
Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b 1 0 1 1 3
vs. community samples), and age. Specifically, the gender differ-
Van Diest and Tylka, 2010 1 0 1 1 3
ence was larger in online than paper-and-pencil survey studies, Watson et al., 2019 0 0 1 1 2
larger in samples from primary/middle/high schools than from col-
Notes:
leges (with community samples being the smallest), and larger at Q1. Was the study population clearly specified and defined?
younger age. (a) yes* (Did the authors describe the group of people from which the study partic-
ipants were selected or recruited, using demographics, location, and time period?).
(b) no description.
Author statement Q2. Representativeness.
(a) truly representative or somewhat representative of the study population*.
Jinbo He: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing, Funding. (b) potential for selection biases or not stated.
Q3. Validity of measuring instrument.
Shaojing Sun: Conceptualization, Writing. Hana F. Zickgraf: Writ-
(a) well developed with reporting validity and/or reliability*.
ing. Zhicheng Lin: Writing. Xitao Fan: Writing, Funding. (b) no description of validity and/or reliability.
Q4. Same method of assessment for males and females.
(a) yes*.
Declaration of Competing Interest (b) no.

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendix B. Supplementary data
Acknowledgements
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.
This research was partially supported by the Presidential Fund
02.011.
of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, to Jinbo He
(Grant Number: PF.01.001428) and Xitao Fan (Grant Number:
PF.01.000670). References

Abbey, A., Zawacki, T., Buck, P. O., Clinton, A. M., & McAuslan, P. (2004). Sexual
Appendix A assault and alcohol consumption: What do we know about their relationship
and what types of research are still needed? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9,
271–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(03)00011-9
*Alcaraz-Ibanez, M., Cren Chiminazzo, J. G., Sicilia, A., & Teixeira Fernandes, P.
Table A1 (2017). Examining the psychometric properties of the Body Appreciation
Quality assessment of the included studies. Scale-2 in Brazilian adolescents. Psychology Society & Education, 9, 505–515.
http://dx.doi.org/10.25115/psye.v9i3.1101
Study names Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Alleva, J. M., Paraskeva, N., Craddock, N., & Diedrichs, P. C. (2018). Body
appreciation in British men: Correlates and variation across sexual orientation.
Alcaraz-Ibanez et al., 2017 1 0 1 1 3 Body Image, 27, 169–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.09.004
Atari, 2016 1 0 1 1 3 American Psychological Association. (2008). Report of the APA task force on the
Brown, 2009 1 0 1 1 3 sexualization of girls. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Davis et al., 2019 0 0 1 1 2 Anderson, D. A., Simmons, A. M., Milnes, S. M., & Earleywine, M. (2007). Effect of
Dumitrescu et al., 2008 1 0 1 1 3 response format on endorsement of eating disordered attitudes and behaviors.
Ellis-Ordway, 2016 1 0 1 1 3 The International Journal of Eating Disorders, 40, 90–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.
Gillen and Dunaev, 2017 1 0 1 1 3 1002/eat.20342
Gonzalez-Jimenez, 2016 1 0 1 1 3 Andrew, R., Tiggemann, M., & Clark, L. (2015). The protective role of body
Halliwell et al., 2017 1 1 1 1 4 appreciation against media-induced body dissatisfaction. Body Image, 15,
Hill et al., 2016 1 0 1 1 3 98–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.07.005
*Atari, M. (2016). Factor structure and psychometric properties of the Body
Jáuregui-Lobera & Bolaños-Ríos, 2011 1 0 1 1 3
Appreciation Scale-2 in Iran. Body Image, 18, 1–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Jáuregui-Lobera et al., 2011 1 0 1 1 3
bodyim.2016.04.006
Jovic et al., 2016 1 1 1 1 4
Avalos, L., Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. (2005). The Body Appreciation Scale:
Kertechian and Swami, 2017 1 0 0 1 2 development and psychometric evaluation. Body Image, 2, 285–297. http://dx.
Lemoine et al., 2018 1 0 1 1 3 doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2005.06.002
Lunde, 2013 1 0 1 1 3 Baldwin, M., & Mussweiler, T. (2018). The culture of social comparison. Proceedings
Luu, 2014 1 0 1 1 3 of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, E9067–E9074.
Marta-Simoes et al., 2016 1 0 1 1 3 Bearman, S. K., Presnell, K., Martinez, E., & Stice, E. (2006). The skinny on body
Menesses et al., 2019 1 0 1 1 3 dissatisfaction: A longitudinal study of adolescent girls and boys. Journal of
Mutale et al., 2016 1 0 1 1 3
Ng et al., 2015 1 1 1 1 4

2
(* Included in the meta-analysis)
 J. He et al. / Body Image 33 (2020) 90–100
Youth and Adolescence, 35(2), 217–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-
9010-9
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2011). Introduction to
meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
*Brown, K. L. (2009). Attachment anxiety and avoidance: Relationship to body image
and exercise behavior (Ph.D.). Ann Arbor: The University of Southern
Mississippi.
Bucchianeri, M. M., Arikian, A. J., Hannan, P. J., Eisenberg, M. E., &
Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2013). Body dissatisfaction from adolescence to young
adulthood: Findings from a 10-year longitudinal study. Body Image, 10, 1–7.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2012.09.001
Buote, V. M., Wilson, A. E., Strahan, E. J., Gazzola, S. B., & Papps, F. (2011). Setting
the bar: Divergent sociocultural norms for women’s and men’s ideal
appearance in real-world contexts. Body Image, 8, 322–334.
Burgess, G., Grogan, S., & Burwitz, L. (2006). Effects of a 6-week aerobic dance
intervention on body image and physical self-perceptions in adolescent girls.
Body Image, 3, 57–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2005.10.005
Callan, M. J., Kim, H., & Matthews, W. J. (2015). Age differences in social
comparison tendency and personal relative deprivation. Personality and
Individual Differences, 87, 196–199.
Calogero, R. M., & Thompson, J. K. (2010). Gender and body image. In Handbook of
gender research in psychology. pp. 153–184. New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1467-5 8
Chen, X., Cai, Z., He, J., & Fan, X. (2019). Gender differences in life satisfaction
among children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies,
1–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00169-9
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
*Davis, L. L., Fowler, S. A., Best, L. A., & Both, L. E. (2019). The role of body image in
the prediction of life satisfaction and flourishing in men and women. Journal of
Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00093-y
Denscombe, M. (2006). Web-based questionnaires and the mode effect: An
evaluation based on completion rates and data contents of near-identical
questionnaires delivered in different modes. Social Science Computer Review,
24, 246–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894439305284522
Duffy, B., Smith, K., Terhanian, G., & Bremer, J. (2005). Comparing data from online
and face-to-face surveys. International Journal of Market Research, 47, 615–639.
*Dumitrescu, A. L., Zetu, L., Teslaru, S., Dogaru, B. C., & Dogaru, C. D. (2008). Is it an
association between body appreciation, self-criticism, oral health status and
oral health-related behaviors? Romanian Journal of Internal Medicine, 46,
343–350.
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot–Based method
of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56,
455–463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis
detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315, 629–634. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x
*Ellis-Ordway, N. (2016). The relationship between body image and marital
satisfaction (Doctoral dissertation). Columbia: University of Missouri.,
https://doi.org/10.32469/10355/56474.
Farhat-ul-Ain, & Fatima, I. (2016). Personal belief in a just world and
self-compassion as predictors of body appreciation in individuals with
amputation using and not using prosthesis. Annals of King Edward Medical
University, 22, 109–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.21649/akemu.v22i2.1304
Ferguson, C. J., & Brannick, M. T. (2012). Publication bias in psychological science:
Prevalence, methods for identifying and controlling, and implications for the
use of meta-analyses. Psychological Methods, 17, 120–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1037/a0024445
Franchina, V., & Coco, G. L. (2018). The influence of social media use on body image
concerns. International Journal of Psychoanalysis and Education, 10, 5–14.
Gillen, M. M. (2015). Associations between positive body image and indicators of
men’s and women’s mental and physical health. Body Image, 13, 67–74. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.01.002
*Gillen, M. M., & Dunaev, J. (2017). Body appreciation, interest in cosmetic
enhancements, and need for uniqueness among U.S. College students. Body
Image, 22, 136–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.06.008
Gnambs, T., & Kaspar, K. (2015). Disclosure of sensitive behaviors across
self-administered survey modes: A meta-analysis. Behavior Research Methods,
47, 1237–1259. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0533-4
Golan, M., Hagay, N., & Tamir, S. (2014). Gender related differences in response to
“in favor of myself” wellness program to enhance positive self & body image
among adolescents. PloS One, 9, e91778 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0091778
Góngora, V. C., Licea, V. C., Chams, M. R. M., & Thornborrow, T. (2020). Assessing the
measurement invariance of a Latin-American Spanish translation of the Body
Appreciation Scale-2 in Mexican, Argentinean, and Colombian adolescents.
Body Image, 32, 180–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.01.004
*Gonzalez-Jimenez, H. (2016). Associations between cosmopolitanism, body
appreciation, self-esteem and sought functions of clothing. Personality and
Individual Differences, 101, 110–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.
056
Grogan, S. (2016). Body image: Understanding body dissatisfaction in men, women
and children. Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315681528
Guest, E., Costa, B., Williamson, H., Meyrick, J., Halliwell, E., & Harcourt, D. (2019).
The effectiveness of interventions aiming to promote positive body image in
99
adults: A systematic review. Body Image, 30, 10–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.bodyim.2019.04.002
Halliwell, E. (2013). The impact of thin idealized media images on body
satisfaction: Does body appreciation protect women from negative effects?
Body Image, 10, 509–514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.07.004
*Halliwell, E., Jarman, H., Tylka, T., & Slater, A. (2017). Adapting the Body
Appreciation Scale-2 for Children: A psychometric analysis of the BAS-2C. Body
Image, 21, 97–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.03.005
Halliwell, E., Jarman, H., Tylka, T. L., & Slater, A. (2018). Evaluating the impact of a
brief yoga intervention on preadolescents’ body image and mood. Body Image,
27, 196–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.10.003
He, J., Sun, S., Lin, Z., & Fan, X. (2020). The association between body appreciation and
body mass index among males and females: A meta-analysis. Revision submitted
to Body Image (under review).
Herbenick, D., Fu, T. C., Dodge, B., & Fortenberry, J. D. (2019). The alcohol contexts
of consent, wanted sex, sexual pleasure, and sexual assault: Results from a
probability survey of undergraduate students. Journal of American College
Health, 67, 144–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1462827
Higgins, J. P., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring
inconsistency in meta-analyses. The BMJ, 327, 557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/
bmj.327.7414.557
*Hill, B. M., Ogletree, S. M., & McCrary, K. M. (2016). Body modifications in college
students: Considering gender, self-esteem, body appreciation, and reasons for
tattoos. College Student Journal, 50, 246–252.
Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & Botella, J. (2006).
Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? Psychological
Methods, 11, 193–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.193
*Jáuregui-Lobera, I., & Bolaños-Ríos, P. (2011). Spanish version of the Body
Appreciation Scale (BAS) for adolescents. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14,
411–420. http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/rev SJOP.2011.v14.n1.37
*Jáuregui-Lobera, I., Bolaños-Ríos, P., Santiago-Fernández, M. J., Garrido-Casals, O.,
& Sánchez, E. (2011). Perception of weight and psychological variables in a
sample of Spanish adolescents. Diabetes, MetabolicSsyndrome and Obesity:
Targets and Therapy, 4, 245. http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/DMSO.S21009
*Jovic, M., Sforza, M., Jovanovic, M., & Jovic, M. (2017). The acceptance of Cosmetic
Surgery Scale: Confirmatory factor analyses and validation among Serbian
adults. Current Psychology, 36, 707–718. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-
016-9458-7
Junqueira, A. C. P., Laus, M. F., Almeida, S. S., Costa, T. M. B., Todd, J., & Swami, V.
(2019). Translation and validation of a Brazilian Portuguese version of the Body
Appreciation Scale-2 in Brazilian adults. Body Image, 31, 160–170. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.10.002
Karazsia, B. T., Murnen, S. K., & Tylka, T. L. (2017). Is body dissatisfaction changing
across time? A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 143,
293–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bul0000081
Keel, P. K., Baxter, M. G., Heatherton, T. F., & Joiner, T. E., Jr. (2007). A 20-year
longitudinal study of body weight, dieting, and eating disorder symptoms.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 422–432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-
843X.116.2.422
*Kertechian, S., & Swami, V. (2017). An examination of the factor structure and sex
invariance of a French translation of the Body Appreciation-Scale-2 in
university students. Body Image, 21, 26–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.
2017.02.005
Lavender, J. M., & Anderson, D. A. (2008). A novel assessment of behaviors
associated with body dissatisfaction and disordered eating. Body Image, 5,
399–403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2008.04.004
Lawson, G. M., Hook, C. J., & Farah, M. J. (2018). A meta-analysis of the relationship
between socioeconomic status and executive function performance among
children. Developmental Science, 21, e12529 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/desc.
12529
*Lemoine, J. E., Konradsen, H., Jensen, A. L., Roland-Levy, C., Ny, P., Khalaf, A., &
Torres, S. (2018). Factor structure and psychometric properties of the Body
Appreciation Scale-2 among adolescents and young adults in Danish,
Portuguese, and Swedish. Body Image, 26, 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
bodyim.2018.04.004
Lewinsohn, P. M., Seeley, J. R., Moerk, K. C., & Striegel-Moore, R. H. (2002). Gender
differences in eating disorder symptoms in young adults. The International
Journal of Eating Disorders, 32, 426–440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.
2018.04.004
Lindberg, S. M., Grabe, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2007). Gender, pubertal development, and
peer sexual harassment predict objectified body consciousness in early
adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17, 723–742. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1532-7795.2007.00544.x
*Lunde, C. (2013). Acceptance of cosmetic surgery, body appreciation, body ideal
internalization, and fashion blog reading among late adolescents in Sweden.
Body Image, 10, 632–635. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.06.007
*Luu, M. (2014). Perspiration and motivation: An examination of body image and
exercise. Quebec: San Jose State University. http://dx.doi.org/10.31979/etd.
ebdr-3t8m
*Marta-Simões, J., Ferreira, C., & Mendes, A. L. (2016). Exploring the effect of
external shame on body appreciation among portuguese young adults: The
role of self-compassion. Eating Behaviors, 23, 174–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.eatbeh.2016.10.006
Marta-Simões, J., Ferreira, C., & Mendes, A. L. (2017). Body appreciation: A buffer
against the impact of shame on depression. European Psychiatry, 41, S533.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2017.01.725
100 J. He et al. / Body Image 33 (2020) 90–100
Mellins, C. A., Walsh, K., Sarvet, A. L., Wall, M., Gilbert, L., Santelli, J. S., . . . & Bah, K.
(2017). Sexual assault incidents among college undergraduates: Prevalence
and factors associated with risk. PloS One, 12, e0186471 http://dx.doi.org/10.
1371/journal.pone.0186471
*Meneses, L., Torres, S., Miller, K. M., & Barbosa, M. R. (2019). Extending the use of
the Body Appreciation Scale -2 in older adults: A Portuguese validation study.
Body Image, 29, 74–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.02.011
Morrison, A., Polisena, J., Husereau, D., Moulton, K., Clark, M., Fiander, M., . . . &
Rabb, D. (2012). The effect of English-language restriction on systematic
review-based meta-analyses: A systematic review of empirical studies.
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 28, 138–144.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462312000086
Muehlenhard, C. L., Peterson, Z. D., Humphreys, T. P., & Jozkowski, K. N. (2017).
Evaluating the one-in-five statistic: Women’s risk of sexual assault while in
college. Journal of Sex Research, 54, 549–576. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00224499.2017.1295014
Murray, S. B., & Touyz, S. W. (2012). Masculinity, femininity and male body image:
A recipe for future research. International Journal of Men’s Health, 11, 227–239.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3149/jmh.1103.227
*Mutale, G. J., Dunn, A. K., Stiller, J., & Larkin, R. F. (2016). Development of a body
dissatisfaction scale assessment tool. The New School Psychology Bulletin, 13,
47–57.
Myers, T. A., & Crowther, J. H. (2009). Social comparison as a predictor of body
dissatisfaction: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 118,
683–698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016763
Naraghi, M., & Atari, M. (2015). Preliminary findings on gender differences in
aesthetic rhinoplasty patients: Body appreciation and appearance
com-parisons. Otolaryngol Open J, 1, 7–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.17140/OTLOJ-1-
103
*Ng, S.-K., Barron, D., & Swami, V. (2015). Factor structure and psychometric
properties of the Body Appreciation Scale among adults in Hong Kong. Body
Image, 13, 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.10.009
Patton, G. C., & Viner, R. (2007). Pubertal transitions in health. Lancet, 369,
1130–1139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60366-3
Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2013). Peer sexual harassment and disordered eating in
early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 49, 184–195. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0028247
Quittkat, H. L., Hartmann, A. S., Düsing, R., Buhlmann, U., & Vocks, S. (2019). Body
dissatisfaction, importance of appearance and body appreciation in men and
women over the lifespan. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, 864. http://dx.doi.org/10.
3389/fpsyt.2019.00864
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing
(version 3.5.2). Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Ramseyer Winter, V., Satinsky, S., & Jozkowski, K. N. (2015). Does women’s body
appreciation differ by sexual orientation? A brief report. Journal of Bisexuality,
15, 130–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2014.999903
Ramseyer Winter, V., O’Neill, E. A., & Omary, A. (2017). Exploring relationships
between body appreciation and self-reported physical health among young
women. Health & Social Work, 42, e62–e67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/hsw/
hlx006
Ramseyer Winter, V., Gillen, M. M., Cahill, L., Jones, A., & Ward, M. (2019). Body
appreciation, anxiety, and depression among a racially diverse sample of
women. Journal of Health Psychology, 24, 1517–1527. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/1359105317728575
*Razmus, M., & Razmus, W. (2017). Evaluating the psychometric properties of the
Polish version of the Body Appreciation Scale-2. Body Image, 23, 45–49. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.07.004
*Soulliard, Z. A., & Vander Wal, J. S. (2019). Validation of the Body Appreciation
Scale-2 and relationships to eating behaviors and health among sexual
minorities. Body Image, 31, 120–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.
09.003
Soulliard, Z. A., Kauffman, A. A., Fitterman-Harris, H. F., Perry, J. E., & Ross, M. J.
(2019). Examining positive body image, sport confidence, flow state, and
subjective performance among student athletes and non-athletes. Body Image,
28, 93–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.12.009
Striegel-Moore, R. H., Rosselli, F., Perrin, N., DeBar, L., Wilson, G. T., May, A., &
Kraemer, H. C. (2009). Gender difference in the prevalence of eating disorder
symptoms. The International Journal of Eating Disorders, 42, 471–474. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1002/eat.20625
*Swami, V. (2016). Illustrating the body: Cross-sectional and prospective
investigations of the impact of life drawing sessions on body image. Psychiatry
Research, 235, 128–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2015.11.034
*Swami, V., & Ng, S. K. (2015). Factor structure and psychometric properties of the
Body Appreciation Scale-2 in university students in Hong Kong. Body Image, 15,
68–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.10.009
*Swami, V., Hwang, C.-S., & Jung, J. (2012). Factor structure and correlates of the
acceptance of cosmetic surgery scale among South Korean university students.
Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 32, 220–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1090820X11431577
*Swami, V., Henry, A., Peacock, N., Roberts-Dunn, A., & Porter, A. (2013). “Mirror,
mirror. . ..Ä preliminary investigation of skin tone dissatisfaction and its
impact among British adults. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 19,
468–476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032904
Swami, V., Tran, U. S., Stieger, S., & Voracek, M. (2015). Associations between
women’s body image and happiness: Results of the YouBeauty. Com Body
Image Survey (YBIS). Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 705–718. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10902-014-9530-7
*Swami, V., Barron, D., Weis, L., & Furnham, A. (2016). Bodies in nature:
Associations between exposure to nature, connectedness to nature, and body
image in US adults. Body Image, 18, 153–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
bodyim.2016.07.002
*Swami, V., Barron, D., & Furnham, A. (2018). Exposure to natural environments,
and photographs of natural environments, promotes more positive body
image. Body Image, 24, 82–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.12.006
Swami, V., Barron, D., Hari, R., Grover, S., Smith, L., & Furnham, A. (2019). The
nature of positive body image: Examining associations between nature
exposure, self-compassion, functionality appreciation, and body appreciation.
Ecopsychology, 11, 243–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/eco.2019.0019
*Swami, V., Khatib, N. A. M., Toh, E., Zahari, H. S., Todd, J., & Barron, D. (2019).
Factor structure and psychometric properties of a Bahasa Malaysia (Malay)
translation of the Body Appreciation Scale-2 (BAS-2). Body Image, 28, 66–75.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.12.006
*Swami, V., Ng, S. K., & Barron, D. (2016). Translation and psychometric evaluation
of a Standard Chinese version of the Body Appreciation Scale-2. Body Image, 18,
23–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.04.005
*Swami, V., Todd, J., Khatib, N. A. M., Toh, E. K. L., Zahari, H. S., & Barron, D. (2019).
Dimensional structure, psychometric properties, and sex invariance of a
Bahasa Malaysia (Malay) translation of the Multidimensional Body-Self
Relations Questionnaire–Appearance Scales (MBSRQ–AS) in Malaysian Malay
adults. Body Image, 28, 81–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.12.007
*Swami, V., von Nordheim, L., & Barron, D. (2016). Self-esteem mediates the
relationship between connectedness to nature and body appreciation in
women, but not men. Body Image, 16, 41–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
bodyim.2015.11.001
*Swami, V., Weis, L., Barron, D., & Furnham, A. (2018). Positive body image is
positively associated with hedonic (emotional) and eudaimonic (psychological
and social) well-being in British adults. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158,
541–552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2017.1392278
Tiggemann, M. (2015). Considerations of positive body image across various social
identities and special populations. Body Image, 14, 168–176. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.03.002
Tiggemann, M., & McCourt, A. (2013). Body appreciation in adult women:
Relationships with age and body satisfaction. Body Image, 10, 624–627. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.07.003
*Todd, J., Aspell, J. E., Barron, D., & Swami, V. (2019). Multiple dimensions of
interoceptive awareness are associated with facets of body image in British
adults. Body Image, 29, 6–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.02.003
Tylka, T. L. (2011). Positive psychology perspectives on body image. In T. F. Cash &
L. Smolak (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of science, practice, and prevention
(2nd ed., pp. 56–64). New York: Guilford Press.
*Tylka, T. L., & Homan, K. J. (2015). Exercise motives and positive body image in
physically active college women and men: Exploring an expanded acceptance
model of intuitive eating. Body Image, 15, 90–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
bodyim.2015.07.003
Tylka, T. L., & Kroon Van Diest, A. M. (2013). The Intuitive Eating Scale-2: Item
refinement and psychometric evaluation with college women and men. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 60, 137–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030893
*Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. L. (2015). The Body Appreciation Scale-2: Item
refinement and psychometric evaluation. Body Image, 12, 53–67. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.09.006
Vadivel, K., Kate, N. N., & Zeba, A. (2019). Correlation between body mass index
(BMI), body appreciation score and emotional intelligence in undergraduate
medical students. International Journal of Physiology, 7, 86–91. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5958/2320-608X.2019.00049.0
*Van Diest, A. M. K., & Tylka, T. L. (2010). The Caregiver Eating Messages Scale:
Development and psychometric investigation. Body Image, 7, 317–326. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2010.06.002
Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package.
Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
Wang, Y., Fardouly, J., Vartanian, L. R., & Lei, L. (2019). Selfie-viewing and facial
dissatisfaction among Chinese adolescents: A moderated mediation model of
general attractiveness internalization and body appreciation. Body Image, 30,
35–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.05.001
*Watson, A., Murnen, S. K., & College, K. (2019). Gender differences in responses to
thin, athletic, and hyper-muscular idealized bodies. Body Image, 30, 1–9. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.03.010
White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2005). Culture and social comparison seeking: The role
of self-motives. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 232–242.
Wood, E., Nosko, A., Desmarais, S., Ross, C., & Irvine, C. (2006). Online and
traditional paper-and-pencil survey administration: Examining experimenter
presence, sensitive material and long surveys. The Canadian Journal of Human
Sexuality, 15, 147–155.