Physique anxiety and self-efficacy influences on perceptions of physical evaluation
Main Article Content
In the present study we integrated concepts from social cognitive and self-presentational theories to determine the relationships among social physique anxiety, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations, and state anxiety in situations of varying physical evaluation potential. These situations included scenarios considered to be high in physical evaluation, low in physical evaluation, and an exercise condition scenario, considered as high and low in physical evaluation by different individuals. Results demonstrated that the highest levels of state anxiety were found in the high physical evaluation/threat conditions and the lowest levels of anxiety were reported in the low physical evaluation/threat conditions. Additionally, the results demonstrated that being female and higher in physique anxiety resulted in greater self-reported state anxiety when encountering a physically evaluative condition of high threat potential. In exercise conditions, it was found that more efficacious individuals reported less state anxiety, however, in low physical evaluation conditions none of the variables predicted state anxiety.
Although regular physical activity participation can result in considerable health benefits (Bouchard, Shephard, & Stephens, 1994), these benefits are rarely the sole reasons given for exercise participation. For example, weight control, improvement of body tone, and overall physical attractiveness are consistently identified as reasons for exercising (Silberstein, Striegel-Moore, Timko, & Rodin, 1988). Such reasons have been argued to be self-presentational in content (Leary, 1992) and represent processes by which people monitor and attempt to control how others perceive them (Schlenker, 1980). Thus, those who are attempting to improve or maintain physical appearance through exercise or to construct a certain social image (e.g., fit and athletic) are clearly exercising for self-presentational reasons.
Given contemporary society’s obsession with appearing attractive, it should come as little surprise that many people exercise for self-presentational reasons. Thompson, Heinberg, Altabe, and Tantleff-Dunn (1999) noted that, in Westernized American society, the equating of beauty with goodness and virtue (Franzoi & Herzog, 1987) has resulted in ultra-thinness becoming almost synonymous with beauty (Striegel-Moore, McAvay, & Rodin, 1986; Thompson, 1990). Davis (1997) noted that such a philosophy has undoubtedly contributed to the estimated 90% of North American women who are dissatisfied with their body shape and size (Probast & Lieberman, 1992). Moreover, increasing numbers of men desire a muscular body shape and are moving further along the continuum of bodily concern (Mishkind, Rodin, Silberstein, & Striegel-Moore, 1986). In addition, this fixation with “looking good” can serve to put people in situations that are perceived as threatening from a physical evaluation perspective.
The interaction of body image concerns as a result of social pressures with certain personality characteristics can amplify some individuals’ responses to these social pressures (Striegel-Moore et al., 1986). This is especially likely to occur in situations with high physical evaluation potential. One personality characteristic that is likely to influence such responses is social physique anxiety, a subtype of social anxiety (Schlenker & Leary, 1982) experienced in response to other people’s evaluations of one’s physique (Hart, Leary, & Rejeski, 1989). It has been demonstrated that high levels of social physique anxiety can impede physical activity participation (Bain, Wilson, & Chaikind, 1989) and lead to exercising more for body appearance or self-presentational reasons (Crawford & Eklund, 1994; Eklund & Crawford, 1994; Frederick & Morrison, 1996). Ironically, individuals who have the greatest need for aerobic exercise may be among the most reluctant to engage in it because of their concerns with others’ impressions of them (Hart et al., 1989).
In addition, social physique anxiety researchers have demonstrated that the evaluative potential of a situation can have an effect on an individual’s self-efficacy (Katula, McAuley, Mihalko, & Bane, 1998), adherence to exercise (Treasure, Lox, & Lawton, 1998), and where an individual chooses to exercise (Spink, 1992; Crawford & Eklund, 1994). As a dispositional quality, social physique anxiety should be able to predict the extent to which individuals will respond with correspondent levels of state anxiety in highly evaluative conditions. In situations with little threat or physical evaluation, physique anxiety is unlikely to have an effect on state anxiety, as there is little concern associated with others’ evaluative reactions (Leary & Atherton, 1986; Schlenker & Leary, 1982).
Physical activity or exercise situations, in all probability, straddle the high/low physical evaluation fence. That is, if self-presentational concerns motivate one to exercise (e.g., to be physically attractive), then exercise situations are more likely to be perceived as non-threatening and invoke less state anxiety. However, if self-presentational concerns (e.g., fear of negative physical evaluation) demotivate an individual to exercise, then exercise situations are more likely to be seen as threatening, produce high levels of anxiety, and possibly lead to the avoidance of exercise.
The amount of confidence one has in his/her ability to create a certain impression in addition to whether or not he/she feels that they can make that impression can also affect one’s anxiety level. Leary and Atherton (1986) have suggested that integrating concepts from social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) and self-presentation theory may lead to a better understanding of social anxiety. Self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one’s capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to meet given situational demands (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997). Self-presentational self-efficacy is the belief that a person holds as to whether they can behave in a manner which will convey a particular impression. Self-presentational outcome expectations are beliefs that a person holds as to whether the performance of a particular behavior will lead to making a particular impression. Social anxiety is exhibited when one is motivated to make a particular impression, but doubts one’s capabilities of doing so.
Thus, the present study had three objectives: 1) to determine the effect of the level of physical evaluation/threat on state anxiety responses, 2) to examine the relationship among self-efficacy, outcome expectations, gender, social physique anxiety, and state anxiety in situations of increasing physical evaluation potential, and 3) to determine whether self-efficacy and outcome expectations contribute to the variance in state anxiety across situations with physical evaluation.
Method
Participants
Undergraduate students (N = 103; 47 males; 56 females) were recruited as participants for the study. Mean age (± SD) of the participants was 19.5 (± 2.0) years. Demographic and health history assessments indicated that participants had an average Body Mass Index (BMI) of 22.77 (± 2.9) [M men = 23.8 (± 2.9); M women = 21.9 (± 2.7)] and engaged in vigorous physical activity 4.6 (± 3.3) times per week. The sample was primarily Caucasian (87%), with Asian Americans (4%), African-Americans (4%), and Latino/as (3%) making up the remainder of the sample.
Measures
Social physique anxiety. The revised Social Physique Anxiety Scale (SPAS; Martin, Rejeski, Leary, McAuley, & Bane, 1997) was used to assess the degree of anxiety that individuals experienced as a function of other people’s evaluations of their physiques. The 9-item scale is scored on a Likert scale from 1 not at all characteristic to 5 extremely characteristic, with an overall score ranging from 9 to 45. Internal consistency for this measure in the present sample was acceptable (α = .89).
Physical attractiveness self-efficacy. The Physical Attractiveness Self-Efficacy Scale (PASE; Bane & McAuley, 1996) was employed in this study to assess self-presentational self-efficacy. The PASE is a 6-item measure of beliefs in one’s ability to self-present in a physically attractive manner. Participants were asked to indicate their degree of confidence in their ability to appear attractive to others. These responses were scored on a 100-point percentage scale comprising 10-point increments (100% = complete confidence, 0% = highly uncertain). Total strength of self-efficacy was then calculated by summing the confidence ratings and dividing by the total number of items in the scale, resulting in a maximum efficacy score of 100. The internal consistency of this measure in the present sample was excellent (α = .94).
Outcome expectations. Data collected in a pilot study were used to construct the outcome expectations measure. The measure consisted of the 8 most frequently identified behaviors in which the participants engaged to enhance other people’s physical evaluation of their physique/body. These items reflected the degree to which participants expected to be seen as physically attractive as a result of engaging in certain behaviors (e.g., working out, dieting, wearing stylish clothing). Items were scored on a 7-point Likert scale anchored by 1 not at all and 7 very much so. The internal consistency of this measure was acceptable (α = .73).
State anxiety. State anxiety was assessed using the 10-item form of Spielberger’s State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, 1979). Individuals were asked to rate how they would feel in each situation on a 4-point scale ranging from not at all to very much so. The internal consistency of this measure in the present sample was high (α = .87-.93).
Situations of high and low physical evaluation/threat. A pilot study was conducted to identify situations that were considered to be high or low in physical evaluation potential. The physical evaluation situations identified in the pilot study are shown in Table 1. Although the high and low threat or physical evaluation situations are – in general – markedly different, exercising or working out appears to have both high and low physical evaluation properties. Therefore, the authors considered this particular situation as a separate physical evaluation event in subsequent analyses.
Procedures
Participants, recruited from undergraduate classes, were first asked to provide consent to participate in the research and to provide demographic information including age, gender, race, height, and weight. Next, they completed the SPAS, PASE, and the Outcome Expectations measures.
Participants were then presented with three scenarios in counter-balanced order. One scenario asked males and females to choose the most threatening of 4 situations likely to make them feel self-conscious, anxious, or embarrassed about their physique or body (see high threatening situations in Table 1).
Table 1. Frequency Counts for Situations of High and Low Threat/Physical Evaluation
The second scenario asked males and females to choose 1 of 4 situations least likely to make them feel self-conscious, anxious, or embarrassed about their physique or body (see low threatening situations in Table 1).
Finally, because exercise or physical activity situations were indicated in a pilot study to have both high and low physical evaluation potential for individuals, a separate scenario in which participants were asked to imagine themselves exercising or working out in the presence of other people was included.
After choosing each situation, participants were asked to imagine themselves in the identified situation at that moment. Next, using the items provided in the State Anxiety Inventory, participants were asked to circle the number that best reflected how they would feel in that particular situation. After completing the questionnaires for each of the three scenarios participants were asked to sit quietly until all participants had finished.
Analytic Plan
The authors’ initial interest was in examining the differential state anxiety responses of participants to the three scenarios involving different levels of physical evaluation potential. Because they had repeated measures over time, they elected to employ latent growth curve methodology to compare responses across physical evaluation levels and the roles played by self-efficacy, outcome expectations, gender, and SPA in the generation of anxiety responses. Latent growth curve methodology (LGM) has a number of advantages over repeated measures analysis of variance models. For example, in analysis of variance only factor means are of interest, whereas LGM takes into consideration both factor means and variances. Additionally, LGM allows for associations among individual difference variables thereby identifying the roles played by determinants and outcomes in a structural equation modeling fashion.
Model Testing
In the first set of analyses, the authors attempted to determine whether anxiety responses differed as a function of the evaluative nature of the scenarios. Initially, a totally unconstrained model was calculated as an omnibus test of scenario effects on anxiety. Next a model in which parameter estimates for all three scenarios were constrained to be equal was conducted. This was then statistically compared to the omnibus test. If the chi-square difference test is significant, this suggests that there is a significant difference among the scenarios in anxiety. In order to determine the nature of this difference, it is then necessary to constrain parameter estimates for each of the three pairs of scenarios, allowing a statistical comparison of these constrained models to the unconstrained model. In this manner, it is then possible to determine exactly which evaluative situations elicit statistically significant differential responses.
In the second stage of their analyses, the authors tested models examining the roles played by self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, gender, and SPA in the generation of state anxiety associated with each of the evaluative scenarios. Model fitting procedures then calculated a χ2 goodness-of-fit test. A nonsignificant χ2 is indicative of a good fit of the model to the data. Additionally, the authors calculated two other fit indices considered particularly appropriate for relatively small samples, the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) to further test the fit of the model to the data. Values in excess of .90 are deemed acceptable.
Results
Differential Influence of Evaluative Condition on State Anxiety
The comparison of the omnibus unconstrained model with the model in which all three evaluative condition responses were constrained to be equal was significant (χ2(2) = 145.74, p < .0001). This suggests that there were significant differences across the conditions and therefore subsequent models were compared to determine the nature of the evaluative condition-state anxiety relationship. All three comparisons were found to be statistically significant (all ps <.001) with the high physical evaluation condition resulting in the highest levels of state anxiety (M = 25.03, SE = 0.63) and the lowest levels of anxiety being reported for the low physical evaluation condition (M = 13.11, SE = 0.41). As expected, given that participants considered it to be both high and low in evaluative potential, the exercise condition scenario resulted in anxiety levels that were between the levels of the high and low physical evaluation potential conditions (M = 17.83, SE = 0.62) and statistically different from both.
Efficacy, Expectations, Gender, and Physique Anxiety Influences on State Anxiety Across Evaluative Situations
The initial analyses reported above supported the pattern of anxiety responses which had been expected. The next set of analyses simultaneously examined the roles played by efficacy and outcome expectations, gender, BMI, and physique anxiety in the generation of these anxiety responses across the three evaluative conditions. The patterns of relationships across each of the three scenarios were quite different. In terms of predicting state anxiety in the low physical evaluation potential condition, none of the predictor variables contributed significantly to the variance in state anxiety (R2 = .05). In the case of the high physical evaluation potential condition, being female (β = .18, t = 2.20, p = .07) and higher in physique anxiety (β = .51, t = 3.90, p < .001) resulted in greater self-reported state anxiety. In total, however, the predictor variables accounted for 29% of the variance in state anxiety in this condition. In the exercise condition, only self-efficacy was significantly related to state anxiety (β = -.32, t = 2.20, p < .01) with more efficacious individuals reporting less state anxiety when exercise situations were considered to be an evaluative event. Overall, the model accounted for 18% of the variation in state anxiety. Table 2 shows the parameter estimates for each of the evaluative models.
Table 2. Parameter Estimates for Prediction Model of Anxiety Across Physically Evaluative Situations
Discussion
In the present study we integrated concepts from social cognitive and self-presentational theories to determine the relationships among social physique anxiety, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, gender, and state anxiety in situations of varying physical evaluation potential. Consistent with impression management predictions, it was demonstrated that the high physical evaluation/threat condition resulted in the highest levels of state anxiety, the lowest levels of anxiety were reported for the low physical evaluation/threat condition, and the exercise condition scenario resulted in anxiety levels that were between the levels of the high and low physical evaluation potential conditions. Leary and Atherton (1986) have suggested that social anxiety is exhibited when an individual is motivated to make a particular impression but doubts his/her capabilities of doing so. Therefore, in situations with little perceived physical evaluation or threat, individuals are likely to be less motivated either to impress others or to believe they will make the desired impression, and little anxiety will be exhibited (Leary & Atherton, 1986; Schlenker & Leary, 1982). This was illustrated in the present study, as the lowest levels of anxiety were reported for the condition with low perceived physical evaluation potential.
The integration of concepts from social cognitive and self-presentation theories in the present study was effective in predicting participants’ responses to situations of varying degrees of physical evaluation. The results demonstrated that self-efficacy was the best predictor of state anxiety in situations of ambiguous threat/physical evaluation (exercise or working out situations) supporting a social cognitive perspective that would argue that self-efficacy plays a mediational role in anxiety generation, and more so in situations of moderate threat or evaluation (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Additionally, as noted, in situations with a high level of perceived threat or physical evaluation, being female and higher in social physique anxiety resulted in greater self-reported state anxiety. It appears that in highly threatening/evaluative situations, trait-like and personality components such as social physique anxiety override any influence of self-efficacy on state anxiety. It is recommended that researchers continue to examine the extent to which social physique anxiety is a stable personality trait. Although originally conceptualized in this manner, several researchers have found that it is somewhat malleable as a result of exercise intervention (McAuley, Bane, & Mihalko, 1995) and as a result of exposure to photographs of models typifying thin physiques (Thornton & Maurice, 1997). To date, no studies exist in which the relationship between an individual’s level of social physique anxiety and the degree of state anxiety they experience in situations with perceived physical evaluation were examined. In the present study it was illustrated that measuring state anxiety provided valuable information as to how anxious the participants were feeling in a physically evaluative situation. Examining the extent to which this is a function of aspects of the environment is warranted.
These findings should, however, be interpreted with several limitations in mind. First, the sample is limited to college-aged students, although self-presentational concerns are likely to be of considerable importance to this segment of the population. Second, we relied on the use of scenario methodology, in which participants did not actually experience the varying degrees of physical evaluation/threat, but rather imagined themselves in these situations. However, Schlenker and Leary (1982) noted that people can experience social anxiety while imagining social situations as well as when experiencing them, and results gained in present study clearly demonstrated this.
Evidence exists that suggests self-presentational concerns affect both college-aged (Katula et al., 1998) and middle-aged individuals (McAuley, Bane, Rudolph, & Lox, 1995) and have been shown to influence exercise participation (e.g., Bainet al., 1989). However, virtually no research exists in which self-presentational concerns and activity patterns in minorities were found. Thompson et al. (1999) noted that differences in body image, dieting, and disordered eating exist among Caucasian and ethnic minority children (Striegel-Moore, Schrieber, Pike, Wilfley, & Rodin, 1995), adolescents (Story, French, Resnick, & Blum, 1995) and adult women (Rucker & Cash, 1992), and that these differences have often been explained as a result of differing cultural ideals of appropriate thinness (Altabe, 1996). However, those individuals socialized in the American culture will be more likely to support and internalize a thin ideal. Therefore, the self-presentational concerns of minority populations need to be investigated and an examination of the role played by acculturation in the development of these concerns is warranted.
Finally, future researchers should examine the extent to which self-presentational concerns such as social physique anxiety actually present a significant barrier to exercise/physical activity participation. Researchers have found that highly physique anxious individuals exercise less (Hart et al., 1989; Leary, 1992; Lantz, Hardy, & Ainsworth, 1997) but little is known as to the extent to which self-presentational concerns impede physical activity in relation to other barriers.
Altabe, M. N. (1996). Issues in the assessment and treatment of body image disturbance in culturally diverse populations. In J. Thompson (Ed.), Body image, eating disorders, and obesity: An integrative guide to assessment and treatment (pp. 129-147). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bain, S. M., Wilson, T., & Chaikind, E. (1989). Participant perceptions of exercise programs for overweight women. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 134-143.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bane, S., & McAuley, E. (1996). The role of efficacy cognitions in reducing physique anxiety in college females. Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise, 28, S85.
Bouchard, C., Shephard, R., & Stephens, T. (Eds.). (1994). Physical activity, fitness, and health: International proceedings and consensus statement. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Crawford, S., & Eklund, R. C. (1994). Social physique anxiety, reasons for exercise, and attitudes toward exercise settings. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 70-82.
Davis, C. (1997). Body image, exercise, and eating behaviors. In K. Fox (Ed.), The physical self (pp. 143-174). Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL.
Eklund, R. C., & Crawford, S. (1994). Active women, social physique anxiety, and exercise. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 431-448.
Franzoi, S. L., & Herzog, M. E. (1987). Judging physical attractiveness: What body aspects do we use? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 19-33.
Frederick, C. M., & Morrison, C. S. (1996). Social physique anxiety: Personality constructs, motivations, exercise attitudes, and behaviors. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 963-972.
Hart, E. A., Leary, M. R., & Rejeski, W. J. (1989). The measurement of social physique anxiety. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 94-104.
Katula, J. A., McAuley, E., Mihalko, S. L., & Bane, S. M. (1998). Mirror, mirror on the wall…Exercise environment influences on self-efficacy. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 319-332.
Lantz, C. D., Hardy, C. J., & Ainsworth, B. E. (1997). Social physique anxiety and perceived exercise behavior. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20(1), 83-93.
Leary, M. R. (1992). Self-presentational processes in exercise and sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14, 339-351.
Leary, M. R., & Atherton, S. C. (1986). Self-efficacy, social anxiety, and inhibition in interpersonal encounters. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 256-267.
Martin, K. A., Rejeski, W. K., Leary, M. R., McAuley, E., & Bane, S. (1997). Is the social physique anxiety scale really multidimensional? Conceptual and statistical arguments for a unidimensional model. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 19, 359-367.
McAuley, E., Bane, S. M., & Mihalko, S. L. (1995). Exercise in middle-aged adults: Self-efficacy and self-presentational outcomes. Preventive Medicine, 24, 319-328.
McAuley, E., Bane, S. M., Rudolph, D. L., & Lox, C. L. (1995). Physique anxiety and exercise in middle-aged adults. Journal of Gerontology, 50B(5), 229-235.
Mishkind, M. E., Rodin, J., Silberstein, L. R., & Striegel-Moore, R. H. (1986). The embodiment of masculinity. American Behavioral Scientist, 29(5), 545-562.
Probast, C. K., & Lieberman, L. S. (1992). Cultural influences on normal and idealized female body size. Collegium Anthropologium, 16, 151-156.
Rucker, C. E., III & Cash, T. F. (1992). Body images, body-size perceptions, and eating behaviors among African-American and White college women. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 12, 291-299.
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monteray, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 641-669.
Silberstein, L. R., Striegel-Moore, R. H., Timko, C., & Rodin, J. (1988). Behavioral and psychological implications of body dissatisfaction: Do men and women differ? Sex Roles, 19, 219-232.
Spielberger, C. D. (1979). Preliminary manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida.
Spink, K. S. (1992). Relation of anxiety about social physique to location of participation in physical activity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 1075-1078.
Story, M., French, S. A., Resnick, M. D., & Blum, R. W. (1995). Ethnic/racial and socioeconomic differences in dieting behaviors and body image perceptions in adolescents. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 18, 173-179.
Striegel-Moore, R., McAvay, G., & Rodin, J. (1986). Psychological and behavioral correlates of feeling fat in women. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 5, 935-947.
Striegel-Moore, R., Schreiber, G. B., Pike, K. M., Wilfley, D. E., & Rodin, J. (1995). Drive for thinness in Black and White preadolescent girls. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 18, 59-69.
Thompson, J. K. (1990). Body image disturbance: Assessment and treatment. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
Thompson, J., Heinberg, L., Altabe, M., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (1999). Exacting beauty: Theory, assessment, and treatment of body image disturbance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Thornton, B., & Maurice, J. (1997). Physique contrast effect: Adverse impact of idealized body images for women. Sex Roles, 37(5-6), 433-439.
Treasure, D. C., Lox, C. L., & Lawton, B. R. (1998). Determinants of physical activity in a sedentary, obese female population. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20, 218-224.
Table 1. Frequency Counts for Situations of High and Low Threat/Physical Evaluation
Table 2. Parameter Estimates for Prediction Model of Anxiety Across Physically Evaluative Situations
This study was funded by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. (Grant #1 F31 AG05921-01). Appreciation is due to anonymous reviewers.