Does This Make Me Look Fat? The Intersection of Relationship Satisfaction and Body Esteem in Guam's...
-
Upload
jericho-michael-tobias -
Category
Education
-
view
128 -
download
1
Transcript of Does This Make Me Look Fat? The Intersection of Relationship Satisfaction and Body Esteem in Guam's...
DOES THIS MAKE ME LOOK FAT?
THE INTERSECTION OF RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION AND BODY ESTEEM IN
GUAM’S POPULATIONJERICHO MICHAEL S. TOBIAS
PY413 Research Methods in the Behavioral SciencesDr. Yoshito Kawabata
Fall 2015
Overview1. Introduction
• Why This Topic?• Literature Review• Hypotheses
2. Methods• Participants• Materials• Procedures
3. Results4. Discussion5. Questions?
Introduction• Why This Topic?
• While previous research has been done, applicability to Guam has not been studied (i.e. the effects of relationships, or lack thereof, on the way people see themselves in the context of Guam culture).
• Personal
Introduction• Literature Review
• Previous research has shown both positive and negative effects of romantic love experiences on an individual’s body image:• Holland & Eisenhart, 1990; • Pole, Crowther, & Schell, 2004; • Tantleff-Dunn & Thompson, 1995.
IntroductionHypotheses:
1. Within Relationships: • Higher Relationship
Satisfaction > Higher Body Esteem
• Lower Relationship Satisfaction > Lower Body Esteem
2. Between Groups:• Singles will have lower body
esteem than those in romantic relationships.
Methods• Participants
• Demographics:• 49 University of Guam, PY-100
Students• Males - 42.9% (n = 21)• Females - 53.1% (n = 26)• Unspecified - 4.1% (n = 2)
42.9%53.1%
4.1%
Sex
Female Male Unspecified
Methods
• Participants• Attrition Rate
• 22.4% (n = 11)• Used for Analyses - 77.6% (n = 38)
77.6%
22.4%
Valid Invalid
Methods
• Participants• Relationship Status
• Single - 47.4% (n = 18)• In a Relationship or Married - 52.6%
(n = 20) 47.4%52.6%
Relationship Status
Single In a Relationship or Married
Methods• Materials
1. Cover Letter2. Informed Consent Form3. Demographics Information
Sheet4. Relationship Assessment
Scale (RAS)5. Body Esteem Scale (BES)6. Debriefing Form
• Survey packet was included with other surveys and arranged in a controlled sequence.
Methods• Procedures
1. Introduction to experiment.
2. Demographics and relationship status.
3. Relationship status is single.
4. Relationship status is in a romantic relationship or married.
5. Debriefing.
Results• Reliability
• Relationship Assessment Scale
α = 0.765• Reliability
• Body Esteem Scale• Female Sexual Attractiveness
α = 0.648• Female Weight Concern
α = 0.571• Female Physical Condition
α = 0.906• Male Physical Attractiveness
α = 0.912• Male Upper Body Strength
α = 0.916• Male Physical Condition
α = 0.938
Results• Correlational Analyses
• Relationship Satisfaction vs. Body Esteem Scale sub scales
1. Female n = 141. Sexual Attraction: r = -0.180, p = 0.5382. Weight Concern: r = -0.613, p = 0.0203. Physical Condition: r = -0.531, p = 0.051
2. Male n = 61. Physical Attractiveness: r = 0.476, p = 0.3402. Upper Body Strength: r = 0.723, p = 0.1053. Physical Condition: r = 0.595, p = 0.213
Results
• Regression• How well did relationship status and Relationship
Assessment Scale scores predict Body Esteem Scale scores?• Only for:
• Female Weight Concern: p < 0.05 • Female Physical Condition: p = 0.051
Results
Between-Groups Analysis
Sexual Attrac-tiveness
Weight Concern Physical Condi-tion
0
12.5
25
37.5
50
62.5
41
27 28
48
3531
Means for Body Es-teem Scale: Female
Subscales
Single In a Relationship or Married
Physical Attrac-tiveness
Upper Body Strength
Physical Condition0
12.5
25
37.5
50
62.5
3631
48
3934
47
Means for Body Es-teem Scale: Male
Subscales
Single In a Relationship or Married
p = 0.155 p = 0.077 p = 0.275 p = 0.525 p = 0.450 p = 0.806
Discussion• Hypotheses:
1. Participants with higher relationship satisfaction will have higher higher body esteem compared to those with lower relationship satisfaction.
• Opposite was proven for female weight concern.• Supported by Sheets and Ajmere (2005).
2. Participants in relationships will have higher body esteem than those who are single.
• Was not supported in this study.
Discussion• What could have affected the results?
• SAMPLE SIZE too small for each condition• significance strongly affected by sample size.
• DISCREPANCY in number of subjects between conditions• RELIABILITY of scales
• significance was found in female weight concern, which had the lowest Chronbach’s Alpha score (α = 0.571).
• POPULATION used in study• only used college students.
• CONTROLLED SEQUENCE of surveys• CONFOUNDING VARIABLES (that were not accounted for by
the study).
Discussion
• For the future!• larger sample size.• equal distributions in each condition.• broaden the population.• conduct study independently of other
studies.
Thank you!
Questions?