NAME: Experimental Research Methods Paper
Description: You will use the Fat Talk article to provide examples of the elements of an experiment.Must upload as .doc or .docx Use APA style rules, with a running head Double spaced (NO extra spaces between paragraphs) One-inch margins and a Century Gothic 11 (APA allows for other fonts, but I require Century Gothic orArialas my old eyes don’t like curlicues). You may not use any direct quotes. You must summarize, in your own words, and cite the source. Literacy counts.Your paper must be written at a college-level. You will write a 2 to 3-page paper explaining the methodology that was used in the article. THIS IS NOT A PAPER ABOUT FAT TALK.
THIS IS A PAPER DEMONSTRATING THAT YOU UNDERSTAND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH as a way to engage the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
You will introduce the scientific method and experimental research, noting that it is the only type of research method that allows scientists to make causal statements (i.e., this caused that). Make clear that the fat talk article will serve as an example of the elements of an experiment. At a minimum, you must briefly explain the following concepts (citing King):
1. HYPOTHESIS (THE FAT TALK ARTICLE HAS 3 HYPOTHESES - PICK ONE TO DISCUSS)
2. INDEPENDENT VARIABLE – IV
3. DEPENDENT VARIABLE - DV (FOR THE HYPOTHESIS YOU CHOSE)
4. OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF THE IV AND DV (THE DV YOU PICKED – NOT ALL THREE)
5. RANDOM ASSIGNMENT (AND WHY IT’S NECESSARY)
6. EXPERIMENTAL GROUP
7. CONTROL GROUP (AND WHY IT'S NECESSARY)
8. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN RESEARCH
9. PUBLICATION IN A PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL
10. EXPLAIN EACH OF THESE CONCEPTS USING YOUR OWN WORDS AND CITING KING. AND, EXPLAIN HOW THESE CONCEPTS WERE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FAT TALK STUDY, CITING THE FAT TALK AUTHORS. DO NOT USE ANY DIRECT QUOTES. INCLUDE CORRECT APA CITATIONS OF THE ARTICLE AND THE BOOK (KING) IN TEXT AND ON A REFERENCES PAGE (USE THE APA TEMPLATE PROVIDED).
King, L. (2017).Experience psychology(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rubric Detail
A rubric lists grading criteria that instructors use to evaluate student work. Your instructor linked a rubric to this item and made it available to you. SelectGrid VieworList Viewto change the rubric's layout.
Content
Top of Form
|
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor |
| Essential Purpose and Content Mastery | Points Range:55(55% XXXXXXXXXX%) Accurately explained the elements of an experiment and precisely identified the elements in the journal article. | Points Range:50(50% XXXXXXXXXX%) Adequately explained the elements of an experiment and identified the elements in the journal article. | Points Range:46(46% XXXXXXXXXX%) Marginally explained the elements of an experiment and correctly identified some the elements in the journal article. Focused on the Fat Talk article rather than methodology | Points Range:0(0% XXXXXXXXXX%) Paper did not demonstrate understanding of the experimental method. Many elements are missing or used incorrectly. |
| APA Style | Points Range:16(16% XXXXXXXXXX%) Meticulously adhered to APA style rules. Document was appropriately formatted, there were no direct quotes, citations in text and on the references page were thorough and correct. Both the article and text were accurately cited. | Points Range:15(15% XXXXXXXXXX%) Major elements of APA style guide were adhered to with minimal errors. Both the article and text were cited. | Points Range:12(12% XXXXXXXXXX%) APA style was attempted but the paper contained multiple errors. | Points Range:0(0% XXXXXXXXXX%) Paper did not meet rudimentary APA style standards. |
| Grammar and literacy | Points Range:16(16% XXXXXXXXXX%) Highly polished; no grammar or spelling errors, well organized with strong sentence and paragraph structure. Excellent word choices. | Points Range:15(15% XXXXXXXXXX%) Paper is well constructed with minimal errors in grammar or spelling. Paper is organized with good sentence and paragraph structure. The paper reads smoothly. | Points Range:12(12% XXXXXXXXXX%) Paper contains some errors in grammar or spelling. Rudimentary attempt at organizing paragraphs and sentences. | Points Range:0(0% XXXXXXXXXX%) Paper is not written at a college-level. |
The Effects of Negative Body Talk in anEthnically Diverse Sample of College StudentsAlina V. KatrevichJoshua D. RegisterMara S. ArugueteLincoln University of MissouriOur study experimentally examined the effects of negative body talk oncollege students at a Historically Black University. Participants wererandomly assigned to read a vignette that contained dialogue betweenfriends while shopping. In the experimental condition, the dialoguecontained negative body talk, while the control condition contained aneutral subject. After exposure to negative body talk, African Americanparticipants and White men showed greater self-reported eatingpathology than those in the control group. Both men and women reportedfrequent engagement in negative body talk, although women reportedmore positive reasons for engaging in negative body talk than men did.Our study contributes to a small body of literature on negative body talkin ethnically diverse samples.In the United States, the ideal appearance for both men and women issimply defined as young, fit, and thin (Becker, Diedrichs, Jankowski, &Werchan, XXXXXXXXXXFocus on the value of the idealized body is associatedwith habitual concern over one’s appearance (Fredrickson & Roberts,1997). One manifestation of such concern is “negative body talk,” ageneral term encompassing discussion about one’s physical appearance(Engeln, Sladek, & Waldron, XXXXXXXXXXBody talk which focuses on weight(“fat talk”) is common, especially among White women, and may haveboth positive and negative consequences (Britton, Martz, Bazzini, Curtin,& LeaShomb, XXXXXXXXXXAlthough it has been less commonly studied,negative body talk has been identified in men (Engeln, et al, 2013) andmay vary by ethnicity (Nichter, XXXXXXXXXXOur study experimentallyexamines the effects of negative body talk, specifically fat talk, oncollege men and women at a Historically Black University.Both men and women frequently engage in negative body talk(Engeln, et al, XXXXXXXXXXWomen tend to display fat talk as a type of negativebody talk (Nichter, XXXXXXXXXXFat talk typically follows a rigid script inwhich one woman makes a self-depreciating comment about her weight.Author info: Correspondence should be sent to: Dr. Mara S. Aruguete, Dept. ofSocial and Behavioral Sciences, Lincoln University of Missouri, 820 Chestnut St.110 MLK, Jefferson City, MO XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXX American Journal of Psychology, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 1, 43-52.Ó NAJP44 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY(e.g, “I look so fat in these jeans”). A second woman then denies thatcomment’s truth, usually followed by making her own self-depreciatingcomment (“No, your butt’s not big. Check out my muffin-top”). Amongmen, negative body talk also occurs, but tends to be less ritualized, lessfat-focused, and more muscle-focused. Men also tend to make morepositive comments about their bodies than women (Engeln, et al, 2013).Negative body talk is a common topic of conversation, especiallyamong women (Martz, Petroff, Curtin, & Bazzini, 2009; Salk & Engeln-Maddox, XXXXXXXXXXIn an age-diverse sample of women, 81% reported atleast occasional fat talk, with 33% reporting frequent engagement in fattalk. Negative body talk is so socially normal that it can be consideredunacceptable not to engage in it (Britton et al., 2006; Nichter, 2000).Nichter XXXXXXXXXXsuggested that fat talk has the positive function ofenhancing social cohesion, especially among White women and girls.Abiding by the social norms of engaging in fat talk helps women andgirls to fit in, and provides inter-connectedness between them. Britton etal XXXXXXXXXXshowed that women responding to vignettes rated other womenwho self-deprecate as more likable than those who did not, showing thatself-deprecation may be expressed as a way to appear humble andlikeable. Nichter XXXXXXXXXXhypothesized that involvement in fat talk can becompelling since it is considered rude or conceited to fail to respond tofat talk.Researchers have emphasized the need to examine ethniccomparisons in body talk research (Clarke, Murnen, & Smolak, 2010;Engeln, et al, XXXXXXXXXXNichter XXXXXXXXXXexplored the role of ethnicity infrequency of fat talk in a series of interviews with middle and high schoolgirls. African American girls reported less concern over weight and lowerfrequency of fat talk. Nichter XXXXXXXXXXreported that the African Americanconcept of beauty encompassed more than simple physical appearance,and included exhibiting a positive attitude and confidence. However,Engeln-Maddox, Salk, and Miller XXXXXXXXXXfound no ethnic differences infrequency of fat talk or body concerns among White, African American,Asian, and Latina college women. Given the inconsistent findings in theliterature, more research with ethnically diverse samples is warranted.Although consequences of negative body talk may sometimes bepositive in promoting social cohesion, research has suggested harmfuleffects with respect to body attitudes and eating pathology. Correlationalstudies have shown that fat talk is reliably associated with eatingpathology in college (Engeln-Maddox et al., 2012; Clarke et al., 2010)and non-college (Becker et al., 2013) populations. Moreover, studentsdiagnosed with an eating disorder are more likely to engage in fat talkthan those who have not been diagnosed (Ousley, Cordero, & White,2008). Fat talk has also shown positive associations with bodyKatrevich, Register, & Aruguete NEGATIVE BODY TALK 45dissatisfaction (Arroyo & Harwood, 2012; Warren, Holland, Billings, &Parker, 2012) and the internalization of the thin ideal (Becker et al.,2013). The correlations of negative body talk among men are similar tothose among women. Negative body talk is associated with eatingdisordered attitudes and behaviors (Engeln et al., XXXXXXXXXXWhilecorrelational studies are useful in establishing the existence ofrelationships between fat talk and presumed consequences, experimentalresearch is needed to determine cause and effect.Experimental research has manipulated body talk using a variety ofmethods, including vignettes that varied in body talk (Britton et al., 2006;Tompkins, Martz, Rocheleau, & Bazzini, 2009) and confederates whoengaged in scripts containing negative body talk or a neutral subject(Salk & Engeln-Maddox, 2012, Stice, Maxfield & Wells, XXXXXXXXXXIn onestudy, women exposed to fat-talking confederates experienced higherbody dissatisfaction and were more likely to engage in fat talkthemselves. Women who were higher in body dissatisfaction prior to theexperiment were more likely to engage in fat talk overall (Salk &Engeln-Maddox, XXXXXXXXXXThese results suggest that body dissatisfactioncan be considered both a cause and consequence of negative body talk inwomen (Arroyo & Harwood, XXXXXXXXXXA similar experimental study(Engeln et al., 2013) has provided evidence for the existence of negativebody talk’s harmful effects on men. Male participants who were exposedto fat-talking and muscle-talking (“That guy’s pretty jacked. I gotta get tothe gym”) confederates reported higher eating pathology and lowerappearance self-esteem (Engeln et al., 2013) than those not exposed tonegative body talk. These results suggest that negative body talk cancause both men and women to experience greater body dissatisfactionand eating pathology.The present study experimentally varies vignettes to measure theeffects of negative body talk on male and female college students.Participants were randomly assigned to receive a vignette that containeddialogue between friends while shopping. In the experimental condition,the dialogue contained fat talk while the control condition contained aneutral subject. After exposure to fat talk or the control condition, wemeasured eating pathology. We additionally measured frequency andsocial acceptability of fat talk. We examined gender and ethnicdifferences in response to fat talk. Our hypotheses were as follows.H1: Participants exposed to fat talk would show greater eatingpathology than those in the control condition.H2: Women would report higher engagement in fat talk and morepositive consequences of fat talk than men.H3: Women would perceive fat talk to be more socially acceptablethan men.46 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGYMETHODParticipantsOur convenience sample consisted of 132 college students (65women & 67 men; M age = 21.36 yrs; SD = 4.92; 46 Caucasians and 86African Americans) who were surveyed in classes and other sites aroundcampus (e.g., the cafeteria) at a public Historically Black University inMissouri. Participants’ average BMI was in the overweight range (M =26.61; SD = XXXXXXXXXXWe excluded data from 23 participants because ofinconsistencies in their responses which indicated that they were notreading the questions. Specifically, one question asked participants howoften they engaged in fat talk and a subsequent question asked reasonswhy they engage in fat talk. If participants claimed to never engage in fattalk, then checked reasons for engaging, we excluded their data fromanalysis. The resulting sample consisted of 109 college students (59women & 50 men; M age = 21.25 yrs; SD = 4.44; 38 Caucasians & 71African Americans; M BMI = 26.84, SD = XXXXXXXXXXPower analysisindicated that minimum sample size per group should be 21 (calculatedwith Cohen’s d = .80).DesignParticipants were randomly assigned to either an experimental (n =54) or control group (n = 55). The survey included the experimentalmanipulation in the form of a written vignette featuring dialogue betweenfriends in the context of shopping. The experimental group receiveddialogue that contained “fat talk” (“Looking in the mirror you say, ‘I'mso fat, I can’t find anything that fits. Maybe I shouldn't go.’ Friend 1says, ‘You’re not fat’ …”) and the control group received dialogue aboutshoes (“Looking in the mirror you say, ‘This isn’t right. They just don’tmake the right color or style. Maybe I shouldn't go.’ Friend 1 says, ‘I likethat color’…). We asked the participants to do their best to imagine thatthey were a character in the vignette.MeasuresAfter reading the assigned conversation (fat talk or control),participants completed a demographic measure (age, gender, height,weight, and ethnicity). Additionally, participants completed measures ofeating pathology, frequency of fat talk, reasons for fat talk, and socialacceptability of the conversation.Eating pathology was measured using the Drive for Thinness (DT)subscale the Eating Disorder Inventory-2 (EDI-2; Garner, XXXXXXXXXXThis 7-item, 6-point subscale measures the core symptoms of anorexia andbulimia pathology (Cronbach’s alpha on our sample = .86). ParticipantKatrevich, Register, & Aruguete NEGATIVE BODY TALK 47means were calculated for all questions combined such that the minimumscore possible was a one, and the maximum score possible was a six.To measure participants’ self-reported frequency of fat talk, weadapted a procedure by Salk and Engeln-Maddox XXXXXXXXXXWe firstprovided a definition of fat talk (“Fat talk describes negative body-relatedtalk that frequently occurs in peer groups.”), and then measured howoften participants engaged in fat talk with an open-ended question (“Howoften do you engage in fat talk?”) measuring number of times per week.We additionally asked participants about their reasons for ‘fat talk.’The Positive Reasons for Fat Talk Scale (adapted from Salk & Engeln-Maddox, 2011) contained four positive statements about fat talk (e.g., “Itmakes us feel like a more tightly-knit group”). Participants wereinstructed to check any reasons why they personally engage in fat talk.The total possible score was four if a participant checked all four options.Finally, Social Acceptability was measured by how much participantsapproved of the conversation in the vignette (10-items, 5-point Likerttypescale; e.g., “I am bothered by conversations like the one above” –reverse scored; Cronbach’s alpha = .87). Participant means werecalculated for all questions combined such that the minimum score wasone, and the maximum score was five.RESULTSAnalyses were performed using 2 (Ethnicity) x 2 (Gender) x 2(Condition) ANOVAS for each dependent variable. As an initial test forequivalence in BMI between subgroups, we performed an ANOVA onBMI. Results showed no significant main effects for gender (F1,107 = .49,p = .49), ethnicity (F1,107 = 3.06, p = .08), or condition (F1,107 = 2.06, p =.15), nor any significant interactions. These results indicate that oursubgroups had comparable body sizes.Our first hypothesis predicted that participants in the fat talkcondition would show greater eating pathology than those in the controlcondition. ANOVA on Eating Pathology scores showed a significantethnicity x gender x condition interaction (F1,100 = 4.22, p = .04, partial 2= .04). African American women (Control M = 2.87, SD = 1.23; Fat TalkM = 3.15, SD = 1.16), African American men (Control M = 1.85, SD =.88; Fat Talk M = 2.21, SD = 1.91), and White men (Control M = 1.91,SD = .51; Fat Talk M = 3.43, SD = 1.24) exposed to fat talk showedincreases in eating pathology scores compared with the control condition.White women, surprisingly, showed lower eating pathology scores in thefat talk (M = 2.63, SD = 1.27) than in the control (M = 3.14, SD = .60)condition.Our second hypothesis predicted that women would be more likely toengage in fat talk and to report positive consequences of fat talk than48 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGYmen. We found no difference in the self-reported frequency of fat talkamong women and men (Mean times per week = 2.03, SD = 2.58), F1,103= .01, p = .92, partial 2 = .00. However, women (M = 1.76, SD = 1.48)reported more positive reasons for fat talk than men (M = .78, SD = 1.18)did, F1,108 = 15.36, p = .00, partial 2 = .13.Our third hypothesis predicted that women would perceive the fat talkvignette to be more socially acceptable than men. A main effect ofgender in social acceptability scores showed that women also perceivedsocial acceptability of both conditions differently than men, F1,108 = 6.31,p = .01, partial 2 = .06. In both the control and fat talk conditions,women (M = 4.26, SD = 1.39) found the dialogue to be less sociallyacceptable than men (M = 4.71, SD = XXXXXXXXXXAn additional main effect ofcondition showed that participants in the fat talk condition (M = 4.14, SD= 1.36) found the dialogue to be less acceptable than those in the controlcondition (M = 4.79, SD = 1.13), F1,108 = 7.73, p = .01, partial 2 = .07.DISCUSSIONOur study examined the positive and negative effects of negativebody talk (specifically, fat talk) on college students at a HistoricallyBlack University. Although both men and women reported similarfrequency of engaging in fat talk, women perceived more positivereasons for doing so than men did. African American men, AfricanAmerican women, and White men exposed to fat talk showed an increasein self-reported eating pathology when compared with the control group,while White women showed the opposite effect. We found no ethnicdifferences in response to fat talk or frequency of engaging in fat talk.Despite some limitations, this study contributes to the small body ofliterature on the effects of fat talk in men, women, and ethnic minorities.Fat talk was common in our sample, occurring on average, abouttwice a week. Frequency of fat talk was similar in men and women. Thelack of gender difference was curious given that the vast majority of fattalk research has focused on women. Although the frequency of fat talkmight be similar among men and women, research suggests that it variesin content. Martz et al XXXXXXXXXXexamined male and female pressure toengage in positive, self-accepting, and negative body talk in a largesample of men and women recruited from the Internet. Men reportedgreater pressure to engage in positive and self-accepting body talk whilewomen felt greater pressure to engage in negative body talk. Engeln et al XXXXXXXXXXfurther suggests that negative body talk may vary in contentamong women and men, with women showing more concern about fatand men showing more concern about muscle. When comparing theiractual with ideal bodies, men indicated far greater dissatisfaction withtheir musculature than their weight (Pope, Gruber, Mangweth, Bureau,Katrevich, Register, & Aruguete NEGATIVE BODY TALK 49deCol, Jouvent, & Hudson, XXXXXXXXXXFurther research on content of men’sand women’s body talk is needed to explore gender differences in variousforms of body talk.In our sample, women reported more positive reasons for engaging infat talk than men did. This finding supports the notion that negative bodytalk results in benefits that may help to sustain conversations, despitepossible costs. Nichter XXXXXXXXXXreports that these benefits for womeninclude appearing more likeable. Evidence suggests that people whomake both self-deprecating and self-enhancing statements aboutthemselves are better liked than those who solely self-deprecate or selfenhance(Robinson, Johnson, & Shields, XXXXXXXXXXOur results supportNichter’s XXXXXXXXXXnotion that negative body talk is one method of usingself-deprecation to enhance likeability and camaraderie among women.Despite the self-reported positive outcomes for women, both men andwomen found the fat talk vignette to be less socially acceptable than thecontrol vignette. This additional result suggests that there is someambivalence over the social consequences of negative body talk.African American men, African American women, and White menshowed a similar response in eating pathology to our experimentalmanipulation. Each group showed greater eating pathology afterexposure to fat talk when compared with the control condition. Whitewomen, by contrast, showed the opposite effect, with exposure to fat talkresulting in lower eating pathology when compared to the controlcondition. The consistent effects among men concur with Engeln et al.(2013), who found that men exposed to fat-talking confederates showedan increase in eating pathology. These results suggest, even though thecontent of the dialogue may differ from that seen in women, the harmfuleffects of negative body talk persist among men. The unexpected effectsamong White women contrast with previous research (Salk & Engeln-Maddox, 2012), and could have been an artifact of an unnaturalexperimental situation, a small sample of White women (n = 20), or asampling bias. White women choosing to attend a Historically BlackUniversity may not be representative of White women in other contexts.Further research examining larger samples of White women in a varietyof contexts is necessary to gauge the external validity of the result.We found no effect of ethnicity on response to fat talk or frequency ofself-reported fat talk. Our results concur with other research showing noethnic differences in frequency of fat talk or body concerns amongcollege women (Engeln-Maddox et al., XXXXXXXXXXIn contrast, Nichter (2000)reported ethnic differences, with African American girls talking lessabout weight concerns than their White counterparts. This discrepancy infindings may be due to a sociocultural shift over the last decade. Rogers,Wood, and Petrie XXXXXXXXXXreported that early research showed that eating50 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGYdisorders were largely the domain of White women, while beingrelatively uncommon among African American women. More recentresearch has shown that African American women do experience eatingdisorders, body image concerns, and internalization of the thin ideal(Rogers, et al., XXXXXXXXXXEthnic differences in body talk may have similarlybecome smaller and more difficult to detect over time. Anotherpossibility is that African American susceptibility to body shame andappearance anxiety may vary by racial identity or the salience of race inthe context of the study (Watson, Ancis, White, & Nazari, XXXXXXXXXXFutureresearch on multiethnic samples should include measures of ethnicidentity in an effort to understand these associations.Our study had several limitations. Our manipulation of fat talkconsisted of brief, fictional dialogues, in which participants were toimagine being involved. We do not know the extent to which reading atranscript simulates actual involvement in a conversation involving fattalk. Furthermore, our data are based on self-report. Participants'estimates of fat talk frequency may be inaccurate. Our effect sizes werein the medium to small range, indicating we accounted for only a modestproportion of the variance in our dependent measures. Finally, oursample was small. The White sample was particularly small (38Caucasians; 20 women, 18 men). A larger sample might have given usthe statistical power to detect more subtle ethnic and gender differences.Despite these limitations, it is important to note that reading a shortdialogue involving fat talk had a significant effect on eating pathologyamong several groups. Our participants reported frequent involvement infat talk. If the effect is cumulative, repeated exposure might result inmore serious eating pathology. Broad impacts of frequent fat talk mightinclude increased rates of eating disorders. Our study and the results ofprevious research support programs aimed at reducing fat talk, such asFat Talk Free Week (Berthou, 2012), a campus initiative intended to raiseawareness of the negative impact of fat talk.REFERENCESArroyo, A., & Harwood, J XXXXXXXXXXExploring the causes and consequences ofengaging in fat talk. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 40, XXXXXXXXXXdoi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ XXXXXXXXXX654500Becker, C.B., Diedrichs, P.C., Jankowski, G., & Werchan, C XXXXXXXXXXI'm not justfat, I'm old: Has the study of body image overlooked "old talk?" Journal ofEating Disorders, 1(6). doi: XXXXXXXXXX/ XXXXXXXXXX6Berthou, K XXXXXXXXXXFat Talk Free Week. Retrieved fromhttp://www.succeedfoundation.org/work/fat_talk_free_weekBritton, L., Martz, D., Bazzini, D., Curtin, L., & LeaShomb, A XXXXXXXXXXFat talkand self-presentation of body image: Is there a social norm for women to selfdegrade?Body Image: An International Journal of Research, 3, XXXXXXXXXXdoi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim XXXXXXXXXX006Katrevich, Register, & Aruguete NEGATIVE BODY TALK 51Clark, P. M., Murnen, S. K., & Smolak, L XXXXXXXXXXDevelopment andpsychometric evaluation of a quantitative measure of ‘‘fat talk.’’ Body Image,7, 1–7. doi: XXXXXXXXXX/j.bodyim XXXXXXXXXX006Engeln-Maddox, R., Salk, R. H., & Miller, S.A XXXXXXXXXXAssessing women’snegative commentary on their own bodies: A psychometric investigation ofthe Negative Body Talk Scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, XXXXXXXXXXdoi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684312441593Engeln, R., Sladek, M., & Waldron, H XXXXXXXXXXBody talk among college men:Contexts, correlates, and effects. Body Image, 10, XXXXXXXXXXdoi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim XXXXXXXXXX001Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T XXXXXXXXXXObjectification theory: Towardunderstanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, XXXXXXXXXXdoi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j XXXXXXXXXXtb00108.xGarner, D.M XXXXXXXXXXEating Disorder Inventory–2 manual. Odessa, FL:Psychological Assessment Resources.Martz, D. M., Petroff, A.G., Curtin, L.A., & Bazzini, D.G XXXXXXXXXXGenderdifferences in fat talk among American adults: Results from the Psychologyof Size Survey. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 61, XXXXXXXXXXdoi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s XXXXXXXXXX7Nichter, M XXXXXXXXXXFat talk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Ousley, L., Cordero, E. D., & White, S XXXXXXXXXXFat talk among college students:How undergraduates communicate regarding food and body weight, shapeand appearance. Eating Disorders, 16, 73–84. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10640260701773546Pope, H.G., Gruber, A.J., Mangweth, B., Bureau, B. deCol, C., Jouvent, R., &Hudson, J.I XXXXXXXXXXBody image perception among men in three countries.American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, XXXXXXXXXXdoi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.157.8.1297Robinson, M. D., Johnson, J. T., & Shields XXXXXXXXXXOn the advantages ofmodesty: The benefits of a balanced self-characterization. CommunicationResearch, 22, XXXXXXXXXXRogers Wood, N. A., & Petrie, T. A XXXXXXXXXXBody dissatisfaction, ethnic identity,and disordered eating among African American women. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 57, XXXXXXXXXXdoi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018922Salk, R. & Engeln-Maddox, R XXXXXXXXXXFat talk among college women is bothcontagious and harmful. Sex Roles, 66, XXXXXXXXXXdoi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s XXXXXXXXXX1Salk, R., & Engeln-Maddox, R. (2011). “If you’re fat then I’m humongous!”:Content and impact of fat talk among college women. Psychology of WomenQuarterly, 35, 8-28. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684310384107Stice, E. Maxfield, J. & Wells, T XXXXXXXXXXAdverse effects of social pressure to bethin on young women: An experimental investigation of the effects of “fattalk”. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 34, 108–117. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.10171Tompkins, K.B., Martz, D., Rocheleau, C., & Bazzini, D XXXXXXXXXXSociallikeability, conformity, and body talk: Does fat talk have a normative rival in52 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGYfemale body image conversations? Body Image: An International Journal ofResearch, 6, XXXXXXXXXXdoi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim XXXXXXXXXX005Watson, L. B., Ancis, J. R., White, D. N., Nazari, N XXXXXXXXXXRacial identitybuffers African American women from body image problems and disorderedeating. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, XXXXXXXXXXdoi:10.1177/0361684312474799Warren, C. S., Holland, S., Billings, H., & Parker, A XXXXXXXXXXThe relationshipsbetween fat talk, body dissatisfaction, and drive for thinness: Perceived stressas a moderator. Body Image, 9, XXXXXXXXXXdoi: XXXXXXXXXX/j.bodyim XXXXXXXXXX
Bottom of Form