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?