Psychology of Popular Media

#Instabod Versus #BoPo: An Experimental Study of the Effects of Viewing

Idealized Versus Body-Positive Content on Collegiate Males’ and Females’
Body Satisfaction
Mary Pritchard and Anna Button
Online First Publication, April 27, 2023. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000454

CITATION
Pritchard, M., & Button, A. (2023, April 27). #Instabod Versus #BoPo: An Experimental Study of the Effects of Viewing
Idealized Versus Body-Positive Content on Collegiate Males’ and Females’ Body Satisfaction. Psychology of Popular Media.
Advance online publication. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000454
 Psychology of Popular Media
© 2023 American Psychological Association
ISSN: 2689-6567 https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000454

#Instabod Versus #BoPo: An Experimental Study of the Effects of Viewing

Idealized Versus Body-Positive Content on Collegiate Males’ and Females’
Body Satisfaction
Mary Pritchard and Anna Button
Department of Psychological Science, Boise State University

Multiple studies have reported the harmful effects of appearance-related social media content on women’s
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

body image; however, few studies have examined gender differences in the impact of Instagram images on
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

body satisfaction and body appreciation. In addition, no studies have examined the influence of body-
positive images on males’ body image and body appreciation. Thus, the purpose of the present study was
to examine the influence of three different types of Instagram posts (idealized, body-positive, and nature
images) on males’ and females’ body satisfaction and appreciation. Three hundred seventy-one emerging
adults (18–29 years old) viewed one of three sets of Instagram posts based on gender and completed
body image measures before and after viewing those images. While the experimental condition only
impacted overall posttest body satisfaction in females, when the salience of the images was highlighted
by asking about how viewing these Instagram posts made them feel about specific body parts, both
males’ and females’ feelings about their bodies seemed to be negatively affected by idealized Instagram
images and positively affected by viewing body-positive posts. However, while females’ body image
may benefit more from viewing body-positive images than idealized or nature images, males seem to benefit
from viewing nonidealized images (either body-positive or nature images).

Public Policy Relevance Statement

An experiment examined the influence of Instagram posts (i.e., idealized, body-positive, nature images)
on males’ and females’ body image. Our results suggest that males and females are affected by idealized
(thin ideal, muscular ideal) posts on Instagram, especially when the images are made more salient by
asking participants about their satisfaction with their specific body parts. However, while females’
body image may benefit more from viewing body-positive images than idealized or nature images,
males seem to benefit from viewing nonidealized images (either body-positive or nature images).

Keywords: body dissatisfaction, gender, Instagram, idealized images, body positivity

Today, many individuals spend more time viewing appearance-
focused media online than appearance-focused images in traditional
media, such as magazines (Bair et al., 2012). Stein et al. (2019) sug-
gested that social media has replaced traditional media as the primary
source in which beauty standards are introduced or maintained.
However, a growing body of literature has indicated that collegiate
males and females who internalize unrealistic body, and appearance
ideals may be more vulnerable to feelings of body dissatisfaction
after viewing appearance-focused online media (Andrew et al.,
Mary Pritchard https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4704-5869
Anna Button https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6994-5537
We have no known conflicts of interest or funding sources to disclose.
Data are available upon request.
Mary Pritchard contributed toward conceptualization, formal analysis,
writing and supervision. Anna Button contributed toward conceptualization,
methodology, investigation and writing.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Mary E. Pritchard, Department of Psychological Science, Boise State
University, 1910 University Drive, Boise, ID 83725-1715, United States.
Email: marypritchard@boisestate.edu
2016; Bair et al., 2012; Cramblitt & Pritchard, 2013; Stein et al.,
2019).
With over one billion monthly active users, over 70% of those
under the age of 34, Instagram is one of the most popular picture-
and video-sharing social media networks for college-aged students
(Dixon, 2022). Research on Instagram has become particularly prom-
inent over the past few years as research has shown that the use of
social media that is primarily picture-based is often linked with
body dissatisfaction (Cohen et al., 2018; Holland & Tiggemann,
2016; Meier & Gray, 2014), particularly among female college stu-
dents (S. H. Thompson & Lougheed, 2012). Instagram’s portrayal
of the idealized body has been dubbed “Instabod” and has become
an international body image trend (Chatzopoulou et al., 2020).
Although body dissatisfaction is a multidimensional construct
that goes beyond weight (Cash & Smolak, 2011), research focuses
on two types of body dissatisfaction experienced by collegiate
males and females: drive for thinness and drive for muscularity.
Research suggests that females across cultures feel pressured to be
slender, commonly referred to as the “drive for thinness” (Girard
et al., 2018; Johnson et al., 2015). On the other hand, males tend
to have more muscle dissatisfaction and are more likely than females
to want to lose body fat and increase muscle mass to better define

1
 2 PRITCHARD AND BUTTON
their musculature (Leit et al., 2002; McCabe & Ricciardelli, 2004;
McCreary & Sasse, 2000). Research suggests that up to 90% of
undergraduate males of normal weight think they are underweight
and want to obtain more muscle mass (Frederick et al., 2007).
But, regardless of the type of dissatisfaction, not everyone
who views appearance-focused media on social networking sites
experiences body dissatisfaction. The Tripartite Influence Model
suggests that one’s perception of the ideal body comes from three
primary sources: peers, family, and the media (J. K. Thompson
et al., 1999). Although media shapes and influences body ideals
by displaying “ideal” bodies (Grabe et al., 2008), body dissatisfac-
tion develops when an individual internalizes those idealized body
ideals and then compares their appearance to those ideals and
finds themselves lacking (Rodgers et al., 2020; Stein et al., 2019;
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Van den Berg et al., 2002). Research further suggests that this path-
way of exposure leading to internalization and social comparison
may be more common when one feels that the “target’ image should
be attainable for them (Knobloch-Westerwick & Romero, 2011;
Veldhuis et al., 2014), as might be the case with friends in one’s
peer group (Charoensukmongkol, 2018; Fardouly et al., 2018;
Webb et al., 2014).
In addition to perceived attainability (Knobloch-Westerwick &
Romero, 2011), researchers further suggest that there may be gender
differences in these pathways of internalization and social compari-
son. For example, the research suggests that viewing an abundance
of photos containing the muscular ideal may contribute to body dis-
satisfaction in men (Gültzow et al., 2020). Franzoi et al. (2012) sug-
gest that males are less negatively affected by appearance-focused
posts than females (see also Watson et al., 2019). Franzoi et al.
found that female college students were more likely than male col-
lege students to negatively compare their faces and bodies to same-
sex targets (see also Webb et al., 2014). However, males were more
likely than females to believe that “perfection” for their desired face
or body was personally attainable. That is, males are more hopeful
about achieving their ideal (muscular) looks than females (see also
Tamplin et al., 2018). In contrast, women’s body esteem is more
likely to be negatively affected after viewing appearance-related
media as women tend to be more self-critical during social compar-
ison (Franzoi et al., 2012).
Body Appreciation
If comparing oneself to and internalizing the images presented on
social media posts is linked to body image dissatisfaction in some,
are there any factors that mitigate this? Research has suggested
two important factors: body appreciation and body positivity.
Body appreciation is having an intuitive, respectful relationship
with one’s body, focusing on the body’s functionality and ability
to engage in activities that contribute to one’s overall wellbeing, as
opposed to focusing on contentedness with one’s shape and appear-
ance, as is the case with body satisfaction. (Sundgot-Borgen et al.,
2021). Research has suggested that body appreciation may be a pro-
tective factor against body dissatisfaction when females are exposed
to ideal images (Andrew et al., 2015; Halliwell, 2013). When
Watson et al. (2019) exposed females to thin ideal images, those
who displayed higher levels of body appreciation displayed lower
levels of negative social comparison with said thin ideal images.
However, males in their study did not show significant relationships
between body appreciation and negative social comparison when
exposed to thin, athletic, or hyper-muscular images, indicating that
body appreciation may only serve as a protective factor for females.
This may be because males had higher levels of body appreciation
than females overall. Interestingly, Tiggemann and Anderberg
(2020a) found that body appreciation decreases in females exposed
to idealized images. This may explain why in some cases, even those
who report initially having higher body esteem are susceptible to
decreased body satisfaction after viewing thin appearance-related
online media. This suggests that having greater body satisfaction
and appreciation before viewing appearance-related imagery does
not always buffer against negative perceptions about one’s body in
females (Mulgrew et al., 2021).
Body Positivity and Instagram
Given that some research has suggested that body appreciation may
help offset the harmful effects of social media, it is of no surprise that
the body positivity movement developed as a way to use social media
in a beneficial capacity by promoting body appreciation as well as the
normalization of bodies that do not fit the “ideal” (Brathwaite &
DeAndrea, 2021). Notably, current literature indicates that body-
positive content on social media may help buffer or moderate feelings
of negative body image in college-aged females (Cohen, Fardouly,
et al., 2019; Cohen, Irwin, et al., 2019; Ogden et al., 2020). The
term body positivity is malleable, shaped by social identities, and con-
nected to one’s own perceived body acceptance by others (Tylka &
Wood-Barcalow, 2015b). The characteristics of body positivity or
the body-positive image are also multifaceted, including different
aspects or levels such as body appreciation, body love, inner positiv-
ity, and body protectiveness (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015b).
Specifically, body positivity or body-positive content on social
media refers to the growing trend of content featuring users or posts
that aim to challenge current thin-ideal beauty standards by encourag-
ing the acceptance of all body types and features (Cohen, Fardouly,
et al., 2019; Cohen, Irwin, et al., 2019).
Instagram is one of the most popular picture- and video-sharing
social media networks for body-positive content (Instagram, July
2021). Searching hashtags relating to body positivity, such as #body-
positive, on Instagram generates over 16.3 million body-positive posts
or videos (Instagram, July 2021). Cohen, Irwin, et al. (2019) con-
ducted a content analysis on body-positive accounts on Instagram
and found that about 95% of body-positive content consisted of a
visual representation while the rest contained text only. These visual
representations mainly consisted of images of women with body
sizes ranging from underweight to overweight. In addition, about
forty percent of posts included visual representations of human figures
with a bodily feature not typically deemed ideal, such as cellulite or
skin blemishes.
Research suggests that the usage of appearance-focused online
media that pertains to thin-ideal standards has been shown to be cor-
related to eating pathology and body dissatisfaction in collegiate
women, especially with those who frequently engage in social com-
parison and internalize the thin-ideal (Bair et al., 2012; Fardouly
et al., 2018; Hendrickse et al., 2017). Therefore, it is not surprising
that Ogden et al. (2020) suggest that increasing the number of posts
with more diverse bodies may effectively lower body dissatisfaction
levels and affect how participants perceive current notions of beauty
ideals. On the other hand, some researchers criticize the popularized
body positivity trend, stating that the expectations for women to
 #INSTABOD VERSUS #BOPO
love their bodies still promote an unhealthy appearance-focused
behavior that ultimately fuels the idea that appearance and looks are
valued above all else (Cohen et al., 2020). In addition, some studies
promote the idea that viewing images that are nonappearance-related,
such as images of travel, nature, or objects, may even increase body
satisfaction (Cohen et al., 2020; Rounds & Stutts, 2021). Many
researchers recommend that more research is needed to better under-
stand the impact of body-positive content on viewers’ body image sat-
isfaction, especially in men (Bair et al., 2012; Cohen et al., 2020;
Hendrickse et al., 2017). In addition, no studies have examined how
body-positive content affects men’s body image. The lack of male
representation in body positivity research may create the expectation
that women are more likely to be positively affected by body-positive
content than men, diminishing possible solutions to help men over-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
come low body satisfaction related to social media use (Frederick
et al., 2017).
The Present Study
Research suggests that collegiate men and women may be vulner-
able to feelings of body dissatisfaction after viewing appearance-
focused online media showcasing the “ideal” body (Andrew et al.,
2016; Bair et al., 2012; Cramblitt & Pritchard, 2013; Stein et al.,
2019). In particular, the social media site Instagram has increasingly
been the focus of attention as the use of picture-based social media is
often linked with body dissatisfaction (Cohen et al., 2018; Holland
& Tiggemann, 2016; Meier & Gray, 2014). However, research has
suggested that males may be less vulnerable than females to social
media posts displaying the “ideal” body type (Franzoi et al., 2012;
Tamplin et al., 2018; Watson et al., 2019). Thus, the first purpose
of this study was to extend previous research by examining
gender differences in exposure to different types of images on
Instagram.
Second, research suggests that body appreciation may be a protec-
tive factor against the harmful effects of exposure to images on
Instagram in collegiate females but not collegiate males (Watson
et al., 2019). Thus, the second purpose of this study was to add to
the literature exploring potential gender differences in body apprecia-
tion and its relationship with body image satisfaction after exposure to
the ideal body image on Instagram. Finally, similar to body apprecia-
tion, research suggests that body-positive content on social media may
help buffer or moderate feelings of negative body image in college-
aged females (Cohen, Fardouly, et al., 2019; Cohen, Irwin, et al.,
2019; Ogden et al., 2020). However, to our knowledge, no research
has studied how body-positive content affects men’s body image
due to the expectation that women are more likely to be positively
affected by body-positive content than men (Frederick et al., 2017).
Thus, another purpose of this study is to assess how body-positive
content impacts male college students.
The present study sought to expand on existing research in two
ways. First, we wanted to examine the influence of body-positive
images on males’ body image and body appreciation as, to our
knowledge, that has not been assessed before. Second, we sought
to add to the literature examining gender differences in the impact
of Instagram images on body satisfaction and body appreciation in
male and female college students. Whereas Watson et al. (2019)
exposed participants to one of three different types of “ideal” images
(thin, athletic, or hyper-muscular), similar to Cohen, Fardouly
et al.’s (2019) study of collegiate females, we sought to compare
3
male’s and female’s responses to (a) gender-based “ideal” images
(thin for women and muscular for men), (b) body-positive images,
or (c) neutral (i.e., nature) images. We chose to showcase different
“ideal” images for males (muscular) and females (thin) as research
suggests that females across cultures feel pressured to be slender
(Girard et al., 2018; Johnson et al., 2015), whereas males tend to
want to lose body fat and increase muscle mass to better define
their musculature (Leit et al., 2002; McCabe & Ricciardelli, 2004;
McCreary & Sasse, 2000). We decided to examine the impact of
neutral/nature images as research has suggested that viewing images
that are nonappearance-related, such as images of travel, nature, or
objects, may increase body satisfaction in female college students
(Rounds & Stutts, 2021). Thus, we wanted to compare the influence
of neutral (i.e., nature) images to those specifically designed to
improve body image (i.e., body positivity images).
In sum, we hypothesized that:
1. Collegiate females exposed to idealized images (thin-ideal)
would display lower levels of body satisfaction (Franzoi
et al., 2012) and body appreciation (Tiggemann &
Anderberg, 2020a) as compared to those viewing body-
positive or neutral/nature images. We also expected that
females exposed to body-positive images would display
greater levels of body satisfaction than those exposed to
nature images (Rounds & Stutts, 2021).
2. Males exposed to idealized images (muscular-ideal) would
also display lower levels of body satisfaction (Gültzow et al.,
2020; Tiggemann & Anderberg, 2020b) compared to those
viewing body-positive or nature images.
3. Women would display lower levels of body satisfaction
(Franzoi et al., 2012) and body appreciation (Watson et al.,
2019) after viewing idealized images compared to males.
Method
Participants
Three hundred ninety-three college students completed an omni-
bus survey about social media’s influence on body image. To keep
the results relevant to emerging adults (18–29), 22 participants
were deleted, leaving us with 371 participants (230 identified as
female and 141 as male). Ages of participants ranged from 18 to
29 (M = 20.30, SD = 2.66). Most participants identified themselves
as White (81.6%), with 7.9% as mixed race, 4.3% as Latinx, 4.1% as
Asian, 1.1% as American Indian or Alaskan Native, 0.5% as African
American, and 0.5% as other.
Procedure
Once approval was received from the Institutional Review Board,
participants were recruited from multiple places. Most participants
were recruited via a Psychology 101 subject pool using Sona
Systems. Other participants were recruited through a psychology
department newsletter sent to students and social media that adver-
tised a self-report survey on the topic of Instagram and Memory.
Participants 18 years and older were eligible to participate. At the
beginning of the survey, an explanation of the purpose of the study
and informed consent was presented. However, following the direc-
tion of Cohen, Fardouly, et al. (2019), the study’s true purpose was
masked. The study was advertised to participants as being about
 4 PRITCHARD AND BUTTON
Instagram and Memory instead of Instagram and Body Positivity
to limit biased data. Participants were then asked to report age, gender,
race, weight, height, and how often they spent time on the Instagram
platform. After taking a premeasure of body satisfaction, participants
were randomly assigned to different exposure conditions (ideal, body
positivity, and nature images) based on a question asking participants
to choose the gender they identify with most. Participants viewed 20
photos of their exposure condition for 7 s each, along with distractor
memory questions between every five posts (i.e., “In the last five
posts, how many images contained the color red?”). The following
section included postmeasures of body satisfaction, perceived effects
of media exposure, body appreciation, and attitudes toward body-
positive accounts. The survey took approximately 30–45 min to com-
plete, and participants were eligible to receive university credit or par-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ticipate in a raffle for one of four $25 gift cards. Participants were then
debriefed at the end of the study.
Materials
Pilot Study
Three sets of visual exposure conditions for each gender were
included in the study (male body-positive, male muscular-ideal,
nature images, female body-positive, female thin-ideal, nature
images), with each of the conditions containing 20 posts each.
Initially, 50 posts for each condition were collected via public
Instagram accounts by searching hashtags such as #bodypositive,
#malebodypositive, #bodypositivity, and #beauty. A pilot study
was conducted with 22 participants for the male set of conditions
(bopo and muscular-ideal posts) and 31 participants to rate the
female set of conditions (bopo and thin-ideal posts). Raters were
given a definition of body-positive (“body-positive” content is
defined as images or posts that encourage self-acceptance and sup-
port of various body types, as well as body characteristics not typi-
cally deemed ideal, such as large stomachs or stretch marks.) and
thin-ideal (“idealized images” on Instagram refer to posts or content
that contain images of people who fit the thin-ideal, specifically
those with thin and toned bodies, who typically pose in revealing
or form-fitting fashion.) before being asked to rate each post to the
extent of how accurately it portrayed the definitions.
Ratings were conducted using a visual analog scale (0 = not at all,
100 = to a great extent). These definitions were also adjusted for the
male set of conditions, with the body-positive definition reading
(“body-positive” content is defined as images or posts that encourage
self-acceptance and support of various body types, as well as body
characteristics not typically deemed ideal, such as large stomachs or
absence of muscle mass.). The muscular-ideal definition was: “‘ideal-
ized images’ on Instagram refer to posts or content that contain images
of people who fit the lean and muscular-ideal, specifically those with
bodies that appear muscular and thin.” The 20 posts with the highest
ratings in each condition were selected to be included in the study
(see Figure 1 for a sample of these images). The posts representing
the thin ideal for the female condition consisted of women who appear
to be in tight-fitting clothing, bikinis, or revealing clothing. Posts rep-
resenting female body positivity comprised those who appeared over-
weight or with a body not typically deemed ideal and those with stretch
marks, disabilities, or acne. For the ideal male condition, posts repre-
senting the male lean and muscular ideal consisted of men wearing
clothing that revealed muscular arms, legs, or abdomen. For the
male body positivity condition, posts consisted of men of different
sizes and posts of quotes related to male body positivity. The neutral
Instagram posts were the same for males and females and consisted
of nature photography, such as landscapes, sunsets, and plants. Each
post’s number of likes was shown to replicate a natural virtual environ-
ment. However, comments were not shown in the posts. The posts
could be viewed on a computer or smartphone and were presented
to the viewer for at least 7 s before they were allowed to move on.
Between every five posts were distractor memory questions to hide
the real purpose of the study (i.e., “In the last five posts, how many
people were wearing hats?”).
Measures
Body Satisfaction
Similar to Cohen, Fardouly, et al.’s (2019) study of women, body
satisfaction was measured both before (pretest) and after (posttest)
the experimental manipulation to understand if the level of satisfac-
tion of appearance and weight would change before and after expo-
sure conditions. Participants were asked three questions about their
body satisfaction: “I am satisfied with my weight,” “I am satisfied
with my overall appearance,” and “I am satisfied with my body
shape.” These statements were distributed among distractor items
that asked about the satisfaction of personal relationships, financial
status, housing situation, and occupation to help disguise the purpose
of the study. Participants were asked to indicate their level of satis-
faction according to each statement by dragging a slider from 0 to
100, with 0 representing not at all and 100 representing very
much. Scores were averaged for each item related to body satisfac-
tion. Cohen, Fardouly, et al. (2019) reported the body satisfaction
scale had good to excellent internal consistency at pre- (α = .84)
and postexposure (α = .92) in their sample of collegiate females.
Similarly, in our study, Cronbach’s alphas were calculated separately
for men and women for both the pretest and posttest version of the
body satisfaction scale: α = .91 pretest, female; α = .89, pretest,
male; α = .94 posttest, female; α = .93, posttest, male, indicating
high reliability.
Perceived Effects of Media Exposure Scale
The Perceived Effects of Media Exposure Scale (PEMES) was
created by Frederick et al. (2017) and was used in this study to mea-
sure how participants felt about certain bodily (e.g., weight, thighs,
stomach) and facial (e.g., eyes, nose, the shape of the face) features
after viewing the Instagram posts in their assigned condition. For
example, “How did viewing these posts make you feel about your
weight?” Responses were rated on a seven-point Likert-type scale
to indicate how viewing the posts made them feel about their own
weight (PEMES-weight) or face (PEMES-Face). Responses ranged
from feeling “much worse” to “much better” about a certain physical
characteristic, and scores were averaged for each subscale. Scores
above a 4.0 indicated that participants felt better about a certain
characteristic, and scores below 4.0 indicated they felt worse. The
Cronbach’s α from the original study of female participants were
.97 (PEMES_Weight) and .93 (PEMES_Face). The αs for the pre-
sent study also indicated high reliability (α = .97 PEMES_Weight,
female; α = .95, PEMES_Weight, male; α = .89 PEMES_Face,
female; α = .92, PEMES_Face, male).
 #INSTABOD VERSUS #BOPO 5

Figure 1
The Sample Images for Four Different Experimental Conditions Including Female Ideal, Female Body Positivity, Male Ideal, and Male Body
Positivity
Female Ideal Female Body-Positivity Male Ideal Male Body-Positivity
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Note. Each sample image was taken from Instagram and used in the pilot study or survey. These images were reproduced with permission. Female Ideal
image photo provided by Tonia Atieno. Female Body-Positivity photo provided by Dora Lopez. Source: https://www.instagram.com/p/CC67eaMHcxK/?
igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=. Male Ideal photo provided by Chris Haase. Source: https://www.instagram.com/p/CDLpHk7hwgt/?igshid=
YmMyMTA2M2Y%3D. Male Body-Positivity photo provided by Panagiotis Papadopoulos. Source: https://www.instagram.com/p/CE85mSjAXR7/?
igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y%3D. Original study materials are available by request from the corresponding author. See the online article for the color version
of this figure.

Body Appreciation Statistical Analysis Plan

The body appreciation scale (BAS-2) was created by Tylka and
Wood-Barcalow (2015a) and used to measure levels of acceptance,
respect, and positive regard towards one’s own body after viewing
exposure conditions. The scale consisted of 10 items and included
statements such as “I take a positive attitude towards my body,”
“I am attentive to my body’s needs,” and “I feel love for my
body.” Participants were asked to indicate whether the statements
are true about them never, seldom, sometimes, often, or always.
Scores were rated on a 5-point scale and were averaged, with higher
scores indicating higher levels of body appreciation and lower
scores indicating lower body appreciation. In the original study,
Tylka and Wood-Barcalow (2015a) reported Cronbach’s alphas
of .97 for women and .96 for men. Similarly, in the present
study, α = .96 for female and α = .96 for male, indicating high
reliability.
Attitudes Toward Bopo Accounts
Towards the end of the study, participants were provided a def-
inition of body positivity (Body-positive content is defined as
encouraging the acceptance and support of body types of various
shapes and sizes, as well as body characteristics not typically
deemed ideal, such as stretch marks or body rolls.). They were
asked how often they encountered body positivity content on social
media in their daily lives (responses ranged from always to never on
a 5-point scale) and how likely they would be to follow body-
positive accounts in the future (responses ranged from very likely
to very unlikely on a 5-point scale). These statements were created
by Cohen, Fardouly, et al. (2019) in their Attitudes toward
Body-Positive accounts scale.
Data were entered into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS Version 27). Means and standard deviations were calculated
for all variables. Analyses focused on scores on the Body
Satisfaction survey (posttest) using a 2 (Gender) × 3 (Experimental
Condition) multivariate analysis of variance (ANOVA), holding pre-
test body satisfaction scores constant. Differences in participants’
PEMES (Face, Weight) posttest scores were examined using a
2 (Gender) × 3 (Experimental Condition) multivariate ANOVA.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Participants who did not complete the posttest section of the survey
were considered incomplete responses and deleted. All remaining par-
ticipants passed survey attention checks and were retained. Our final
data set included 230 women (75 in the ideal body image condition,
80 in the body positivity condition, and 75 in the nature image condi-
tion) and 141 men (50 in the ideal body image condition, 45 in the
body positivity condition, and 46 in the nature image condition).
Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables are
displayed in Table 1. To ensure there were no significant differ-
ences in demographic characteristics between participants across
the three experimental conditions and gender, we ran a series of
2 (Gender) × 3 (Experimental Condition) ANOVAs. Men (M =
21.21, SD = 3.02) were slightly older than women (M = 19.73,
SD = 2.24), F(1, 365) = 29.20, p , .001, η2 = .07. There were
no age differences between participants assigned to the experi-
mental conditions, F(2, 365) = 2.71, p = .068; however, there
was an interaction effect of gender and experimental condition,
 6 PRITCHARD AND BUTTON
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables
Variable M (SD) Female M (SD) Male
1. BAS 3.24 (0.91) 3.50 (0.93)
2. BodySatPre 53.65 (25.96) 59.71 (25.38)
3. BodySatPost 53.93 (27.55) 60.04 (26.61)
4. PEMES_Weight 3.96 (1.27) 3.99 (0.92)
5. PEMES_Face 4.04 (0.91) 4.10 (0.85)
Note. Values above the diagonal represent correlations in females; values below the diagonal are correlations in males; BAS = Body Appreciation Scale;
BodySatPre = Body Satisfaction Pretest score; BodySatPost = Body Satisfaction Posttest score; PEMES_Weight = score on the Perceived Effects of Media
Exposure Scale weight subscale; PEMES_Face = score on the Perceived Effects of Media Exposure Scale face subscale.
**p , .01. ***p , .001.
F(2, 365) = 3.08, p = .047, η2 = .02. While there were no age
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
differences for participants in the body positivity condition; men
in the ideal and nature image conditions were slightly older than
the women in those conditions. Thus, we controlled for age in all
of our analyses. There were no significant gender, χ2(6) = 9.30,
p = .157, Cramer’s V = .16, p = .157, or experimental condition
differences in racial background, χ2(12) = 20.23, p = .063,
Cramer’s V = .17, p = .063.
Body Appreciation
We hypothesized that collegiate females exposed to idealized
images (thin-ideal) would display lower levels of body appreciation
than those viewing body-positive or neutral/nature images. We also
hypothesized that women would display lower body appreciation
levels than men. To test these hypotheses, we ran a 2 (Gender) ×
3 (Experimental Condition) ANOVA, controlling for age. There
were gender differences in body appreciation, with men (M =
3.50, SD = .93) scoring higher than women (M = 3.25, SD = .91),
F(1, 360) = 8.78, p = .003, η2 = .02; however, there were no effects
of experimental condition, F(2, 360) = 1.72, p = .180, η2 = .01, or
an interaction effect, F(2, 360) = .53, p = .590, η2 = .00, indicating
that body appreciation was not affected by our experimental
manipulation.
Body Satisfaction
Body satisfaction was assessed in two ways in our study. First,
participants completed a body satisfaction scale before and after
exposure to one of the three experimental conditions. We had
hypothesized that collegiate females exposed to idealized images
(thin-ideal) would display lower levels of body satisfaction than
those viewing body-positive or neutral/nature images, with females
exposed to body-positive images displaying greater levels of body
satisfaction than those exposed to nature images. We expected that
males exposed to idealized (muscular-ideal) images would also dis-
play lower levels of body satisfaction compared to those viewing
body-positive or nature images. Finally, we hypothesized that
women would display lower levels of body satisfaction after viewing
idealized images compared to males.
To ensure there were no differences in body satisfaction prior
to our experimental manipulation, we first ran a 2 (Gender) ×
3 (Experimental Condition) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on
pre-experimental manipulation body satisfaction scores, controlling
for age. Although there was a significant gender effect, F(1, 343) =
5.25, p , .05, η2 = .02, with females displaying lower levels of
1 2 3 4 5
— .72*** .75*** .32*** .23***
.65*** — .94*** .31*** .18**
.72*** .92*** — .36*** .24***
.39*** .36*** .38*** — .71***
.35*** .28*** .30*** .75*** —
premanipulation body satisfaction than males, there was no differ-
ences in premanipulation body satisfaction between participants in
the three experimental conditions, F(2, 343) = .68, nor was the
interaction between gender and experimental condition significant,
F(2, 343) = .58.
To examine the influence of gender and our experimental manip-
ulation on postexperimental manipulation body satisfaction scores,
we ran a 2 (Gender) × 3 (Experimental Condition) ANCOVA, con-
trolling for age and pretest score on the body satisfaction measure.
There was a significant effect of the experimental condition on
body satisfaction, F(2, 336) = 8.95, p , .001, η2 = .05. Although
there was no effect of gender by itself, F(1, 336) = .598, p = .440,
η2 = .00, the interaction between gender and experimental condition
approached statistical significance and we felt it bore further exam-
ination, F(2, 336) = 2.77, p = .064, η2 = .02 (see Figure 2). LSD
posthoc tests revealed that females in the thin-ideal condition dis-
played lower levels of posttest body satisfaction than females in
the body positivity condition, p = .023, but there were no significant
differences between the thin-ideal and nature image conditions,
p = .631. Although there was a trend for females in the body positiv-
ity condition to score higher on the body satisfaction posttest than
females in the nature condition, this difference did not quite reach
statistical significance, p = .073. None of the conditions differed sig-
nificantly in males (see Figure 2).
The second way we assessed body satisfaction was to give partici-
pants the PEMES on the posttest. A 2 (Gender) × 3 (Experimental
Condition) multivariate ANCOVA, with age as a covariate,
revealed that there was no effect of age; Wilks’s λ = .996,
F(2, 359) = .51, η2 = .00, or gender on the overall PEMES; Wilks’s
λ = .998, F(2, 359) = .73, η2 = .00. However, there was a significant
multivariate effect of experimental condition; Wilks’s λ = .706,
F(4, 722) = 31.36, p , .001, η2 = .16, as well as a two-way interac-
tion between gender and experimental condition; Wilks’s λ = .928,
F(4, 722) = 6.58, p , .001, η2 = .04. Follow-up univariate tests
revealed a significant effect of experimental condition on both
PEMES_Weight, F(2, 360) = 74.07, p , .001, η2 = .29, as well as
PEMES_Face, F(2, 360) = 28.50, p , .001, η2 = .14. There was
also a significant two-way interaction between gender and experimen-
tal condition on PEMES_Weight, F(2, 360) = 12.70, p , .001,
η2 = .07, as well as PEMES_Face, F(2, 360) = 3.63, p , .05,
η2 = .02. LSD Posthoc tests revealed that, for the PEMES-Weight,
females in the ideal condition scored significantly lower than
those in the body positivity (p , .001) and nature image conditions
(p , .001). In addition, females in the body positivity condition
scored significantly higher than those in the nature image condition
(p , .001). However, while males in the ideal condition scored
 #INSTABOD VERSUS #BOPO 7

Figure 2
Body Satisfaction by Experimental Condition
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Note. Females in the thin-ideal condition displayed lower levels of posttest body satisfaction than females
in the body positivity condition. There was a trend for females in the body positivity condition to score higher
on the body satisfaction posttest than females in the nature condition. None of the conditions differed sig-
nificantly in males or females. See the online article for the color version of this figure.

significantly lower than those in the body positivity (p , .001) and
nature image conditions (p , .001), there were no significant differ-
ences in scores on the PEMES-Weight between males in the body
positivity and nature image conditions (p = .298; see Figures 3
and 4). For the PEMES-Face, women in the ideal condition scored
significantly lower than those in the body positivity (p , .001) and
nature image conditions (p , .001). However, while there was
a trend for significant differences in scores on the PEMES-Face
between females in the body positivity and nature image conditions,
it did not quite reach significance (p = .053). Males in the ideal con-
dition scored significantly lower on the PEMES-Face than those in the
body positivity condition (p = .006). Males in the ideal condition also
scored lower than those in the nature image condition (p = .028).
However, there were no significant differences between PEMES-
Face scores between the body positivity and nature image conditions
(p = .564; see Figures 3 and 4).
Frequency of Viewing Body Positivity Posts
As we were assessing the impact of body positivity posts
on body image, we felt it was important to understand how often
our participants saw these types of images in “real life” and
whether this differed by gender or experimental condition. Thus,
we ran a 2 (Gender) × 3 (Experimental Condition) ANCOVA, con-
trolling for age. There were gender differences in the frequency
of viewing body-positive posts on their own social media
accounts, with females (M = 3.15, SD = .95) being more likely to
view body positivity posts than males (M = 2.14, SD = .95),
F(1, 361) = 100.41, p , .001, η2 = .22. There were also effects
of experimental condition, with those assigned to the body
positivity condition being significantly less likely than those in the
nature image condition to view body positivity posts in their
everyday lives, F(2, 361) = 4.92, p = .008, η2 = .03. However,
there was no significant interaction effect, F(2, 361) = .02,
p = .983, η2 = .00.
Discussion
Research on the impact of Instagram on body dissatisfaction has
increased in recent years as numerous studies have suggested that
picture-based social media is often linked with body dissatisfaction
(Cohen et al., 2018; Holland & Tiggemann, 2016; Meier & Gray,
2014). However, research has further suggested that males and
females may not be equally affected by images portraying the
“ideal” body (Franzoi et al., 2012; Tamplin et al., 2018; Watson
et al., 2019) or by potential protective factors like body appreciation
(Watson et al., 2019). Furthermore, while research suggests that
body-positive content on social media may help buffer feelings of
body dissatisfaction in college-aged females (Cohen, Fardouly,
et al., 2019; Cohen, Irwin, et al., 2019; Ogden et al., 2020), no
research to date has studied how body-positive content affects
men’s body image (Frederick et al., 2017). Thus, the primary aim
of the present study was to examine the impact of idealized, body-
positive, and nature images on collegiate male and female students’
body image and levels of body appreciation.
Consistent with previous research, we found that collegiate
females exposed to thin-ideal images displayed lower levels
of body satisfaction (Franzoi et al., 2012) as compared to those
viewing body-positive images across all three of our measures of
body satisfaction (body satisfaction posttest, PEMES-Face, and
 8 PRITCHARD AND BUTTON

Figure 3
Gender by Experimental Condition Differences in Scores on the PEMES_Weight
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Note. Females in the ideal condition scored significantly lower than those in the body positivity and nature
image conditions. In addition, females in the body positivity condition scored significantly higher than those
in the nature image condition. Males in the ideal condition scored significantly lower than those in the body
positivity and nature image conditions. PEMES_Weight = score on the Perceived Effects of Media Exposure
Scale weight subscale. See the online article for the color version of this figure.

PEMES-Weight). However, the second part of this hypothesis was
only partially supported. While females in the thin-ideal condition
scored significantly lower on the PEMES-Weight and PEMES-
Face than females in the nature condition, this was not true of the
body satisfaction posttest scores. Our hypothesis that females
exposed to body-positive images would display greater levels of
body satisfaction than those exposed to nature images (Rounds &
Stutts, 2021) was supported by the PEMES-Weight measure but
not by the PEMES-Face subscale, and there was only a trend for sig-
nificance on the body satisfaction posttest score. This finding is
consistent with Cohen, Fardouly, et al. (2019) as they found no
impact of nature images on collegiate females’ body satisfaction
in their study. Frederick et al. (2017) also noted that the
PEMES-Weight exhibited stronger effects in their study than the
PEMES-Face. Because the images in our study, and those in
the Frederick et al. (2017) study, featured near full bodies, rather
than just focusing on the face, it may make sense that scores on
the PEMES-Weight would be more affected than those on the
PEMES-Face. In addition, it may be that the measure used to assess
body satisfaction (PEMES vs. Body Satisfaction Scale) may impact
the results found. Future studies may wish to use other measures of
body satisfaction to determine when nature images relate to body sat-
isfaction and when they do not. Unlike previous research
(Tiggemann & Anderberg, 2020a), we found no effect of experi-
mental condition on body appreciation in collegiate females. This
may be due to the difference in stimulus materials. While both of
our studies utilized thin-ideal images, Tiggemann and Anderberg
used “real” (e.g., not posed or photoshopped) and “paired” images
(i.e., the same woman was shown in two images paired
side-by-side—one photo was idealized and one was real/edited)
instead of body positivity or nature images.
Based on previous research, we expected that males exposed to
muscular images would display lower levels of body satisfaction
(Gültzow et al., 2020; Tiggemann & Anderberg, 2020b) compared
to those viewing body-positive or nature images. The impact of
idealized images (muscular-ideal) on body image in male college
students was inconsistent across our measures of body satisfaction.
While males in the ideal condition scored significantly lower than
those in the body positivity and nature image conditions on the
PEMES-Weight and PEMES-Face, there were no differences in
males’ body satisfaction posttest scores across experimental con-
ditions. Recent research indicates that the impact of body image
exposure on one’s body satisfaction may depend upon the level of
self-discrepancy one holds, such that viewing an “ideal” body
depicted would not necessarily lead to body dissatisfaction if some-
one had low levels of self-discrepancy (Kim, 2021). It may be that
the nature of the questions asked on the PEMES, because it asks
about specific body parts, may be more likely to highlight levels
of self-discrepancy than more general questions about body satisfac-
tion as asked on the Body Satisfaction Scale. Again, future research
may wish to replicate this study with different measures of body
satisfaction to help determine this. Further, Chatzopoulou et al.
(2020) found that males with low body esteem were much more neg-
atively affected by idealized images on Instagram than were males
with higher body esteem. Thus, future studies may wish to measure
body esteem in male participants to ascertain how body esteem
relates to general versus specific body part dissatisfaction after
viewing idealized images on Instagram.
 #INSTABOD VERSUS #BOPO 9

Figure 4
Gender by Experimental Condition Differences in Scores on the PEMES_Face
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Note. Women in the ideal condition scored significantly lower than those in the body positivity and nature
image conditions. There was a trend for significant differences in scores on the PEMES-Face between
females in the body positivity and nature image conditions. Males in the ideal condition scored significantly
lower on the PEMES-Face than those in the body positivity condition, as well as the nature image condition.
PEMES_Face = score on the Perceived Effects of Media Exposure Scale face subscale. See the online article
for the color version of this figure.

The main purpose of the present study was to assess gender differ-
ences in the impact of idealized, body-positive, and nature Instagram
images on body satisfaction and body appreciation in male and
female college students. Based on previous research, we expected
that women would display lower levels of body satisfaction
(Franzoi et al., 2012) and body appreciation (Watson et al., 2019)
after viewing idealized images compared to males. As expected,
we did find that males scored higher than females on measures of
body appreciation, suggesting that men may have an overall more
positive relationship with the functionality of their bodies than
women. However, there was no significant interaction between gender
and experimental condition on body image. The discussion of our
next finding might help explain why. Specifically, when the inter-
action between gender and experimental condition on posttest
body satisfaction approached statistical significance, we conducted
follow-up tests to further evaluate this trend. Although posttest body
satisfaction did seem to be affected by the experimental condition
in women, with females in the thin-ideal condition displaying lower
levels of posttest body satisfaction than females in the body positivity
condition, none of the conditions differed significantly from one
another in males. As both the Body Appreciation Scale and Body
Satisfaction Scale refer to the overall body, it is not surprising that
we found no interaction between gender and experimental condition
on body appreciation when male overall body satisfaction did not
appear to be influenced by the type of image (i.e., experimental con-
dition). Unlike our results with posttest overall body satisfaction, both
males and females seemed to be affected by idealized images when it
came to their weight and face. Both males and females in the idealized
condition reported lower scores on the PEMES-Weight and on
the PEMES-Face than those in the body positivity and nature image
conditions. Thus, our hypothesis that females would be more affected
by idealized images seems partially supported. Regarding overall
body satisfaction, it appears that females in the idealized condition
displayed lower levels of body satisfaction than females viewing non-
idealized (body-positive or nature images). In contrast, image type did
not seem to affect overall body satisfaction in males. However, when
body satisfaction was assessed using measures that asked about how
viewing these Instagram posts made them feel about specific body
parts (i.e., the PEMES-Weight and PEMES-Face), both males and
females in the idealized condition reported lower levels of body satis-
faction compared to those in the other conditions. While it may be eas-
ier for males to “brush” off overall body comparisons as males are
more hopeful about their ability to achieve their overall body goals
(Franzoi et al., 2012; Tamplin et al., 2018), perhaps asking about
specific body parts makes those negative comparisons more salient,
and thus, harder to brush off. Fardouly et al. (2018) suggest that view-
ing images on Instagram is associated with higher self-objectification
because viewing those images increases the salience of one’s physical
appearance.
Limitations and Future Directions
This study had several limitations that need to be addressed. First,
due to the Covid-19 pandemic, our study was conducted online
instead of in a laboratory setting. Although we had attention checks
and screen timers as part of our experimental manipulation, it is
 10 PRITCHARD AND BUTTON
unclear how much participants paid attention to the images pre-
sented. Similarly, as our study was a force-exposure experimental
design, it may not reflect real-life scrolling habits on Instagram.
Instagram users likely have a variety of content in their feed rather
than all idealistic images or all nature images. Future studies should
study the impact of viewing different types of Instagram images in a
more naturalistic way (i.e., having Instagram users use their own
accounts and frequently “ping” them to answer questions related
to the types and impact of the images they are viewing).
A few key differences between the types of images partici-
pants were shown that may have created confounds in our study.
For example, while we tried to choose idealized and body-positive
images for both males and females wearing the same amount of
clothing (i.e., many images were of individuals in bathing suits),
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
the idealized images tended to be more sexualized (i.e., provocative
poses) than the body-positive images. Thus, it may be that the sexual-
ized nature of the idealized image rather than the image content itself
contributed to the differences between idealized and body-positive
images in our study. In addition, while all of the idealized images
were photos, a few of the body-positive images contained quotes (or
cartoonish figures with quotes), especially for the male body-positive
condition. While our image choices represent the type of body-positive
images on Instagram, the fact that not all body-positive images were
photos may have contributed to any differences found between ideal-
ized and body-positive posts. Finally, participants were shown images
in their original condition, including the text that accompanied the orig-
inal post and the number of likes the post received. Research suggests
that likes do influence social media user behavior; specifically, the
number of likes on a post can affect appearance comparison and facial
dissatisfaction in female Instagram users (Tiggemann et al., 2018).
Thus, future research may wish to control for image type and number
of likes when conducting further experiments on the influence of social
media on body image.
Furthermore, our data was limited to a convenience sample of self-
reported data from predominantly White participants. Although we
tried to expand our participation by posting our study on social
media, most of our participants came from one university in the
Rocky Mountain region of the United States. Therefore, our findings
may not fully represent collegiate females and males across the
United States, or students enrolled within different college courses
and majors; a more diverse sample (age, race, ethnicity, gender iden-
tity) would help address this limitation. Third, as we wanted to exam-
ine differences between males and females, we forced participants to
self-identify as one gender (male or female). This may not account
for participants’ lived experiences of how they best identify their
gender orientation. We also did not ask participants’ sexual orienta-
tion. Previous research has suggested that gay men are more likely to
exhibit body image concerns than heterosexual men (Strübel &
Petrie, 2019). Thus, future studies may wish to explore whether
social media images affect body image in the same way in heteoro-
sexual versus nonheterosexual samples.
Conclusion
Despite these limitations, our study was the first to experimentally
examine the impact of body-positive Instagram images on body
satisfaction and body appreciation in collegiate males and females.
Our results suggest that males and females are differentially affected
by the images they see on Instagram; however, this partially depends
on the type of body satisfaction assessed. While the experimental
condition only impacted overall posttest body satisfaction in
females, when salience of the images are highlighted by asking
about how viewing these Instagram posts made them feel about spe-
cific body parts (as on the PEMES-Face and PEMES-Weight), both
males’ and females’ feelings about their bodies seemed to be nega-
tively affected by idealized Instagram images and positively affected
by viewing body-positive posts. Interestingly, females in our study
seemed to benefit more from viewing body-positive images than
nature images as PEMES-Weight and PEMES-Face scores were
higher for females in the body-positive condition than in the nature
condition. In contrast, there were no significant differences between
males in the body positivity and nature image conditions. This may
be because females in our study were more likely than males to view
body-positive posts in their daily lives. On the other hand, there were
no differences between PEMES scores in males who viewed nature
versus body-positive images.
Our results align with Cohen, Fardouly, et al. (2019) and Gültzow
et al. (2020) in that males and females are affected by idealized (thin
ideal, muscular ideal) posts on Instagram, especially when the images
are made more salient for them by asking about specific body parts.
However, while females’ body image may benefit more from viewing
body-positive images than idealized or nature images, males seem to
benefit from viewing nonidealized images (either body-positive or
nature images). Thus, college mental health counselors assisting col-
lege students with body image issues may wish to inquire about their
social media habits, specifically Instagram, and encourage them to
view fewer idealized images if they are suffering from body image dis-
satisfaction. In addition, encouraging discussion of social media and
body image in educational programs while fostering body apprecia-
tion in young individuals may influence a more positive relationship
between individuals and their bodies, theoretically providing a buffer
against negative body image and low body appreciation, and ulti-
mately increasing the health and wellness of those facing poor body
image (Andrew et al., 2015; Cohen, Irwin, et al., 2019; Halliwell,
2013; Ogden et al., 2020).
References
Andrew, R., Tiggemann, M., & Clark, L. (2015). The protective role of body
appreciation against media-induced body dissatisfaction. Body Image, 15,
98–104. https://doi.org/10.10166/j.bodyim.2015.07.005
Andrew, R., Tiggemann, M., & Clark, L. (2016). Predicting body apprecia-
tion in young women: An integrated model of positive body image. Body
Image, 18, 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.04.003
Bair, C. E., Kelly, N. R., Serdar, K. L., & Mazzeo, S. E. (2012). Does the
Internet function like magazines? An exploration of image-focused
media, eating pathology, and body dissatisfaction. Eating Behaviors,
13(4), 398–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2012.06.003
Brathwaite, K. N., & DeAndrea, D. C. (2021). Bopopriation: How
self-promotion and corporate commodification can undermine the body
positivity (bopo) movement on Instagram. Communication Monographs,
89(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2021.1925939
Cash, T. F., & Smolak, L. (2011). Body image: A handbook of science, prac-
tice, and prevention (2nd ed). Guilford Press.
Charoensukmongkol, P. (2018). The impact of social media on social com-
parison and envy in teenagers: The moderating role of the parent compar-
ing children and in-group competition among friends. Journal of Child &
Family Studies, 27(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0872-8
Chatzopoulou, E., Filieri, R., & Dogruyol, S. A. (2020). Instagram And body
image: Motivation to conform to the “instabod” and consequences on
 #INSTABOD VERSUS #BOPO
young male wellbeing. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 54(4), 1270–1297.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12329
Cohen, R., Fardouly, J., Newton-John, T., & Slater, A. (2019). #Bopo on
Instagram: An experimental investigation of the effects of viewing body pos-
itive content on young women’s mood and body image. New Media &
Society, 21(7), 1546–1564. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819826530
Cohen, R., Irwin, L., Newton-John, T., & Slater, A. (2019). #Bodypositivity:
A content analysis of body positive accounts on Instagram. Body Image,
29, 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.02.007
Cohen, R., Newton-John, T., & Slater, A. (2018). “Selfie”-objectification:
The role of selfies in self-objectification and disordered eating in young
women. Computers in Human Behavior, 79, 68–74. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.chb.2017.10.027
Cohen, R., Newton-John, T., & Slater, A. (2020). The case for body positivity
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
on social media: Perspectives on current advances and future directions.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Journal of Health Psychology, 26(13), 2365–2373. https://doi.org/10
.1177/1359105320912450
Cramblitt, B., & Pritchard, M. (2013). Media’s influence on the drive for
muscularity in undergraduates. Eating Behaviors, 14(4), 441–446.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2013.08.003
Dixon, S. (2022, May 12). Instagram: distribution of global audiences 2022,
by age group. Statista.com https://www.statista.com/statistics/325587/
instagram-global-age-group/#:~:text=Instagram%3A%20distribution%
20of%20global%20audiences%202022%2C%20by%20age%20group&
text=As%20of%20April%202022%2C%20roughly,platform%20particularly
%20attractive%20for%20marketers
Fardouly, J., Willburger, B. K., & Vartanian, L. R. (2018). Instagram Use and
young women’s body image concerns and self-objectification: Testing
mediational pathways. New Media & Society, 20(4), 1380–1395. 1177/
1461444817694499
Franzoi, S. L., Vasquez, K., Sparapani, E., Frost, K., Martin, J., & Aebly, M.
(2012). Exploring body comparison tendencies: Women are self-critical
whereas men are self-hopeful. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36(1),
99–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684311427028
Frederick, D. A., Buchanan, G. M., Sadehgi-Azar, L., Peplau, L. A.,
Haselton, M. G., Berezovskaya, A., & Lipinski, R. E. (2007). Desiring
the muscular ideal: Men’s body satisfaction in the United States,
Ukraine, and Ghana. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8(2), 103–117.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.8.2.103
Frederick, D. A., Daniels, E. A., Bates, M. E., & Tylka, T. L. (2017). Exposure
to thin-ideal media affect most, but not all, women: Results from the
Perceived Effects of Media Exposure Scale and open-ended responses.
Body Image, 23, 188–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.10.006
Girard, M., Rodgers, R. F., & Chabrol, H. (2018). Prospective predictors of
body dissatisfaction, drive for thinness, and muscularity concerns among
young women in France: A sociocultural model. Body Image, 26, 103–
110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.07.001
Grabe, S., Ward, L. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2008). The role of the media in body
image concerns among women: A meta-analysis of experimental and cor-
relational studies. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 460–476. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.460
Gültzow, T., Guidry, J., Schneider, F., & Hoving, C. (2020). Male body
image portrayals on Instagram. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 23(5), 281–289. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2019.0368
Halliwell, E. (2013). The impact of thin idealized media images on body sat-
isfaction: Does body appreciation protect women from negative effects?
Body Image, 10(4), 509–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.07
.004
Hendrickse, J., Arpan, L. M., Clayton, R. B., & Ridgway, J. L. (2017).
Instagram and college women’s body image: Investigating the
roles of appearance-related comparisons and intrasexual competition.
Computers in Human Behavior, 74(9), 92–100. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.chb.2017.04.027
11
Holland, G., & Tiggemann, M. (2016). A systematic review of the impact of
the use of social networking sites on body image and disordered eating out-
comes. Body Image, 17, 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016
.02.008
Johnson, S. M., Edwards, K. M., & Gidycz, C. A. (2015). Interpersonal
weight-related pressure and disordered eating in college women: A test
of an expanded tripartite influence model. Sex Roles: A Journal of
Research, 72(1–2), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0442-0
Kim, H. M. (2021). What do others’ reactions to body posting on Instagram
tell us? The effects of social media comments on viewers’ body image per-
ception. New Media & Society, 23(12), 3448–3465. https://doi.org/10
.1177/1461444820956368
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Romero, J. P. (2011). Body ideals in the media:
Perceived attainability and social comparison choices. Media Psychology,
14(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2010.547833
Leit, R. A., Gray, J. J., & Pope, H. G. (2002). The media’s representation of
the ideal male body: A cause for muscle dysmorphia? International
Journal of Eating Disorders, 31(3), 334–338. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat
.10019
McCabe, M. P., & Ricciardelli, L. A. (2004). Weight and shape concerns of
boys and men. In J. K. Thompson (Ed.), Handbook of eating disorders and
obesity (pp. 606–634). John Wiley & Sons
McCreary, D. R., & Sasse, D. K. (2000). An exploration of the drive for mus-
cularity in adolescent boys and girls. Journal of American College Health,
48(6), 297–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448480009596271
Meier, E. P., & Gray, J. (2014). Facebook Photo activity associated
with body image disturbance in adolescent girls. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(4), 199–206. https://doi.org/10
.1089/cyber.2013.0305
Mulgrew, K. E., Findlay, C., Lane, B. R., & Halliwell, E. (2021). Does body
appreciation or satisfaction buffer against idealised functionality-focused
images of models? Body Image, 36(1351), 45–52. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.bodyim.2020.09.007
Ogden, J., Gosling, C., Hazelwood, M., & Atkins, E. (2020). Exposure to
body diversity images as a buffer against the thin-ideal: An experimental
study. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 25(10), 1165–1178. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2020.1734219
Rodgers, R. F., Slater, A., Gordon, C. S., McLean, S. A., Jarman, H. K., &
Paxton, S. J. (2020). A biopsychosocial model of social media use and
body image concerns, disordered eating, and muscle-building behaviors
among adolescent girls and boys. Journal of Youth & Adolescence,
49(2), 399–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01190-0
Rounds, E. G., & Stutts, L. A. (2021). The impact of fitspiration content
on body satisfaction and negative mood: An experimental study.
Psychology of Popular Media, 10(2), 267–274. https://doi.org/10
.1037/ppm0000288
Stein, J.-P., Krause, E., & Ohler, P. (2019). Every (Insta)Gram counts?
Applying cultivation theory to explore the effects of Instagram on young
users’ body image. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 10(1), 87–97.
https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000268
Strübel, J., & Petrie, T. A. (2019). Appearance and performance enhancing
drug usage and psychological well-being in gay and heterosexual men.
Psychology & Sexuality, 10(2), 132–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19419899.2019.1574879
Sundgot-Borgen, C., Sundgot-Borgen, J., Bratland-Sanda, S., Kolle, E.,
Torstveit, M. K., Svantorp-Tveiten, M. K., & Mathisen, T. F. (2021).
Body appreciation and body appearance pressure in Norwegian university
students comparing exercise science students and other students. BMC
Public Health, 21(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10550-0
Tamplin, N. C., McLean, S. A., & Paxton, S. J. (2018). Social media literacy
protects against the negative impact of exposure to appearance ideal social
media images in young adult women but not men. Body Image, 26, 29–37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.05.003
 12 PRITCHARD AND BUTTON
Thompson, J. K., Heinberg, L. J., Altabe, M., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (1999).
Exacting beauty: Theory, assessment, and treatment of body image dis-
turbance. American Psychological Association.
Thompson, S. H., & Lougheed, E. (2012). Frazzled by Facebook? An explor-
atory study of gender differences in social network communication among
undergraduate men and women. College Student Journal, 46(1), 88–98.
Tiggemann, M., & Anderberg, I. (2020a). Social media is not real: The effect
of ‘Instagram vs reality’ images on women’s social comparison and body
image. New Media & Society, 22(12), 2183–2199. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1461444819888720
Tiggemann, M., & Anderberg, I. (2020b). Muscles and bare chests on
Instagram: The effect of Influencers’ fashion and fitspiration images on
men’s body image. Body Image, 35(2), 237–244. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.bodyim.2020.10.001
Tiggemann, M., Hayden, S., Brown, Z., & Veldhuis, J. (2018). The effect
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
of Instagram “likes” on women’s social comparison and body dissatis-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
faction. Body Image, 26, 90–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018
.07.002
Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. L. (2015a). The Body Appreciation
Scale-2: Item refinement and psychometric evaluation. Body Image,
12C(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.09.006
Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. L. (2015b). What is and what is not
positive body image? Conceptual foundations and construct definition.
Body Image, 14, 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.04.001
Van den Berg, P., Thompson, J. K., Obaremski-Brandon, K., & & Coovert,
M. (2002). The tripartite influence model of body image and eating
disturbance. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 53(5), 1007–1020.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(02)00499-3
Veldhuis, J., Konijn, E. A., & Seidell, J. C. (2014). Negotiated media effects
peer feedback modifies effects of media’s thin-body ideal on adolescent
girls. Appetite, 73, 172–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.10.023
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.03.010
Webb, H. J., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Donovan, C. L. (2014). The appear-
ance culture between friends and adolescent appearance-based rejection
sensitivity. Journal of Adolescence, 37(4), 347–358. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.adolescence.2014.02.008
Received October 7, 2021
Revision received November 8, 2022
Accepted December 9, 2022 ▪