How do I look?

Links amongst body image, family

functioning and parent-child relationships

in teenage girls.

Carla Crespo, Jan Pryor, Magda Kielpikowski and Paul Jose

Roy McKenzie Centre for the Study of Families -Victoria University of Wellington-

New Zealand

How does a family researcher get involved with studying body

image?

The interest…“Biting the hand that starves you”Richard Maisel, David Epston and Ali Borden

http://www.narrativeapproaches.com/

The opportunity…The Youth Connectedness Project: a 3 year longitudinal study of young people in New Zealand

Tim terlimn

fjfjfjf

Research tells us that…

- PrevalenceBody dissatisfaction has been reported by

24 - 46% of adolescent girls (large community samples)

- ConsequencesAdolescents’ body dissatisfaction

- is a risk factor for eating pathology - has links with depressed mood

Tripartite Influence Model (Keery, van den Berg, & Thompson, 2004; Thompson et al.,

2004)

Primary sources of influencePrimary sources of influence(Risk factors for the development of body image

problemsand eating pathology)

-Peers-Parents-Media

Peers and familial influences have been somewhat less studied, and we’re focusing on Parents today.

We’re yet to know:

- about the nature of the links among and between whole family functioning, parent-adolescent relationships and body image

-How and if these links change through time.

The Youth Connectedness Project

1. We are examining the links between young girls’ body image (body dissatisfaction) and

-Family cohesion;

-Relationship with mother; and

-Relationship with father

2. Also examined if these links differed by age

Measures1. Body image satisfaction (2 items)

-How happy are you with your weight?-How happy are you with your looks?Cronbach’s alpha: .71

2. Family Cohesion (5 items) -For my family/whanau, spending time together is very important

- We can easily think of things to do together as family/whanau

- My family/whanau likes to spend free time together- My family/whanau ask each other for help- We like to do things just as a family/whanauCronbach’s alpha: .89

(Adapted from FACES II)

Measures

1. Relationship with parents (2 items each)

-How easy is it to talk to your Mother/Father?-How confident are you that your

Mother/Father would help if you if you had a problem?

Cronbach’s alphas: .75 (Mother); .80 (Father)

Sample

Who are the participants?

714 young girls who participated in the Youth Connectedness Project (all from New Zealand’s North Island)

Two age groups (cohorts) at two times of

measurement: Younger cohortn=385

Older cohortn=329

2006 10-11 yrs 14-15 yrs2007 11-12 yrs 15-16 yrs

Main Hypotheses

1. Higher levels of family cohesion at Time 1 will be

predictive of a more positive body image at Time 2

2. For girls in intact families, a positive relationship with

mother AND with father at Time 1 will be predictive of

a more positive body image one year later at Time 2

Questions1. Is positive body image (Time 1) linked to higher levels

of family cohesion (Time 2)?

2. Is positive body image (Time 1) linked to more positive

relationships with mother and father (Time 2)?

3. Are these links moderated by age, i.e., are they different

for our two cohorts?

Results

Part IPart I

Mean differences- between groups- within groups across time

Positive body image: Differences between and within groups across time

Significant differences:Time:No differences in positive body image across time for each of the groupsAge Groups:Younger group > Older group in both Time 1 and Time 2 (to be expected)

2.9

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

Time 1 Time 2Younger group 3.8316 3.865

Older group 3.2439 3.2561

Positive body image

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Family Cohesion

Younger group 3.9427 3.8107

Older group 3.3375 3.1907

Time 1 Time 2

Significant differences:Time:

Time 1 > Time 2 for each of the groupsAge Groups:

Younger group > Older group in both Time 1 and Time 2

Family cohesion decreases over time

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Time 1 4.2563 3.9947 3.9661 3.497

Time 2 4.2789 3.9577 3.8305 3.4494

R. Mother R. Father R. Mother R. Father

Younger group Older group

Relationship with Mother/Father: Both seem to decrease across time

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Time 1 4.2563 3.9947 3.9661 3.497

Time 2 4.2789 3.9577 3.8305 3.4494

R. Mother R. Father R. Mother R. Father

Younger group Older group

Significant differences:Time: Relationship with Mother: Time 1 > Time 2 for older groupAge Groups:

R. Mother and R. with FatherYounger group > Older group in both Time 1 and Time 2

Parent:R. with Mother always higher in all conditions

Results

Part IIPart II

Links between body image and- Family cohesion, - Relationship with mother and relationship with father across time

Family cohesion and body image:

Younger group

Family

cohesion Family

cohesion

Positive body image

Positive body image

.58**

.51**

.08*

* p ‹ .05 ** p ‹ .01 Fixed parameter

Time 1 Time 2

Family cohesion and body image:

Older group

Family cohesion

Familycohesion

Positivebody image

Positivebody image

.66**

.66**

.08*

* p ‹ .05 ** p ‹ .01 Fixed parameter

.09*

Time 1 Time 2

Family cohesion

(Parents’ reports)

Familycohesion

(Parents’ reports)

Positivebody image

Positivebody image

.43**

.50**

* p ‹ .05 ** p ‹ .01

Parents’ reports of family cohesion and body image: Younger group

Time 1 Time 2

Parents’ reports of family cohesion and body image: Older group

Family’s cohesion

Time 1

Family’scohesion

Time 2

Positivebody image

Positivebody image

.43**

.67**

* p ‹ .05 ** p ‹ .01

.10*

Family cohesion

(Parents’ reports)

Familycohesion

(Parents’ reports)

Time 1 Time 2

In sum, so far…

• For the younger group, there is a unidirectional effect: positive body image predicts family cohesion

• For the older group, there is a bidirectional effect: positive body image predicts family cohesion and family cohesion predicts positive body image– This result is supported by analyses

conducted with parents’ reports of cohesion

Relationship with parents and body image:

Both age groups

Relationship with Mother

Positivebody image

.50** .54**

.57** .72**

Model fit (combined model) : Chi-square = 11.17 (df = 9); p = .264; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .03

* p ‹ .05 ** p ‹ .01 Fixed parameter Younger Older

.45** .60**

Relationship with Mother

Positivebody image

Relationship with Father

Relationship with Father

.14** .14**.15** .20**

Time 1 Time 2

Unidirectional?

Surprisingly,

For both age groups, a more positive body image predicted more positive relationships with mother and father but… not the other way around.

Making sense of the results: Towards a more complex view…

Other evidence…Bastiani et al . (2002) found a longitudinal effect for

unhealthy eating on parent-adolescent girls relationships (and not the reverse)

Direct vs. indirect influencesFamilial influences on adolescents’ eating

behaviours…• Indirect

– Perceptions of family relations– Modelling of mother’s behaviours and attitudes

• Direct– Communication between family members (Byely,

Archibald, Graber & Brooks-Gunn, 2000)

Conclusions: • For younger adolescents a positive body

image seems to be a predictor for parent-adolescent and family relationships. Points out its critical and early role.

• Family cohesion is a predictor for body image in later stages of adolescence, a protective factor?

• We need more…- Longitudinal research- Attention to factors that might

mediate the link between parent-adolescent and family relationships and body image