Abstract

 

            The
research focus of this paper is an investigation of The Aspect ratio
differences (ARD) for 3 types of body’s ARDs: Self, Typical and Ideal between
Age, Gender and Handedness groups of university’s participants. An experimental
random survey for university’s group of persons were performed for 93
participants. The survey was stopped after the sample size for each group and
condition reach 6 answers. For example left-handed group has 7 answers. The
research found that participants overestimate the width and the length of
their, typical and ideal bodies. The research shows that Males overestimate
their bodies more than females. This result has on border significance for
typical body and good significance with “0.05” level for other types of ARD.
There were not differences found for typical and ideal body by age groups, but
actual body sizes are different. The young participants aged 18-29
overestimates self-bodies more than participants aged 40+. There were not found
differences by handedness type, but this conclusion has not big power because
left handedness group has only 7 participants in for comparison. May be
distortion by handedness can be found for bigger sample of participants.  In common sense these results confirmed
results that were analyzed by previous authors.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

Introduction

 

The
history of investigations

 

The
human brain has a list of body representations, interpreting information from
the environment and interacting it. The Head and Holmes (1911) got the
description of different schemas that represents human body. There were
proposed two schemas: a ‘postural schema’ – describes of body posture is a
continuously updated, and a ‘superficial schema’ – which is a mediating localization
of touches on the body. Schwoebel & Coslett (2005) provided
lexical-semantic schemas. The topological representation was proposed by (Pick,
1922), when local brain damage causes to impairment of brain representation of
the human body. After this work the body representations are called “body
image”. The “Body image” is a representation of the body that is built base on
visual information and represents: body parts, their allocation onto form, and
sizes (Gallagher & Cole , 1995). The “body image” shows how the body is
recognize by person (Longo, Azanon, & Haggard, 2010).  This “body image” measurement as in previous
investigations does not include emotional perceptions too; this is only metric
aspects of the body.

            The
background for this investigation is that before this a differences of “body
image’s” was found between scientists and artists (e.g., Fan, Dai, Liu,&
Wu, 2005;  Holliday, Longe, Thai,
Hancock, & Tovee, 2011; Sorokowski, 2010). Then body images were
investigated for clinical individuals with body mass disorders

            Several
studies have investigated “body image” within the population of common
participants from population by adjustment of body image to actual body sizes
for example Freeman, Thomas, Solyom, & Hunter, (1984). But the limitations
of such studies were found because they do not investigate various parts of
body individuality.

The
measurement methods

            The
one of first “Body Image” Testing System was developed on computers by Schlundt
and Bell (1993). Then the programs were improved by several subsequent
researchers. These improvements allows to measure size estimates of individual
body parts on the image of entire body (Letosa-Porta, Ferrer-Garcia, &
Gutierrez-Maldonado,2005). Such improvement allows to measure any part of body
for example foot can larger or smaller than hands, size of head. Such approach
allows investigating separate body parts. In this case, such measurements
allows testing of each part of the body and make comparative investigations.
The next step was that body was presented as visual image – standard image.
Then participant compares his own evaluation of image with standard image
(Longo & Haggard, 2012). Papers like Longo and Haggard (2012) shows that
body image distortions methods can be better than metric methods for
investigations because answers or participants were quite accurate but they
showed large distortions. This discrepancy was explained by contrasting
explicit access for depictive tasks, and implicit access for metric tasks
(Longo & Haggard, 2012). The new measures or body parts were found which
allows seeing distortions in new colors.

            Concluding
a literature review, it can be said that person has of their physical self and
the emotional attitudes and beliefs towards it (Longo, M. R., Azanon, E., &
Haggard, P., 2010). Participants overestimate the width of their shoulders and
the length of their upper arms, and underestimate the lengths of their lower
arms and legs (Longo, 2015).  This study
investigates a group of student in the university to find differences (Body
image distortions) within student group. The Aspect ratio difference (ARD) was
measured as shoulder width / height. Then ratios are expressed as the difference
between the perceived ratio and the participant’s true ratio, as a proportion
of the true ratio as this was made in Fuentes, et al., (2013).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Methods

Image
1. Graphical
representation of method and formula of ARD calculations

            93
participants in group (block) were surveyed. Three conditions (body types) were
tested: self, typical and ideal bodies. The investigation of differences by age,
gender and handedness was proposed. Actual body type was compared with
perceived and ARD measure was calculated. This measure shows the level of
distortion between sizes of bodies. The graphical representation and formula of
ARD calculations showed on image 1.

            Three
independent variables were selected to measure differences between perceptions
of body images. The participants were divided by age groups; this allows
comparison between them to investigate the topic. In the end 3 blocks of
answers were obtained for Self, Typical and Ideal bodies. The measurements were
made for 10 body locations (right and left shoulders, hands, waist, hips, and
feet), at least 6 trials were made for each location and condition (age,
gender, handedness).

            The
Body Image Task (BIT) includes these steps:

1)   
Locating of body part
relative to the head.

2)   
Scaling of the mental
image to the size of head.

3)   
Conditional Locating
and scaling (1,2) depend from body condition.

4)   
Measuring overall
body height and shoulder width (one per condition).

            A
descriptive statistics were used to make age groups, mean comparison
techniques: ANOVA, t-test was used to perform comparison of target variables.

The measurements by body parts
were measured as:

·      Shoulders: pivot point of the shoulders

·      Hands: center of the palms, with arms at the side, palms out

·      Waist: part of the abdomen between the rib cage and hips

·      Feet: where the heels hit the ground

·      Hips: point where the pelvic bone protrudes

Finally the participant’s ARDs
were calculated using Formula on Image 1 for each condition. The true ratios
were calculated after perceived ratios to avoid cheating.

The ratio descriptions are
following:

An
ARD equal to zero represent accurate perception of true body aspect. This means
that both ratios (the actual and the perceived ratio in a given condition) are
equal. A ratio larger than 0, could represent an elongation of the perceived
shoulder width, relative to the perceived body height OR a shortening of the
body height relative to shoulder width. The two possibilities (which cannot be
distinguished), symbolize a similar body distortion: a perception of the
particular body image as broader than the participant’s real body. Ratios less
than zero could represent a perceived shortening of the shoulder width relative
to the perceived body height OR an elongation of the body height, relative to
shoulder width. The two possibilities would depict a similar distortion: a
perception of the particular body image as narrower than the participant’s real
body.

Results

Descriptive
analysis

Table
1.1 Gender

 

Frequency

Percent

Valid
Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Female

67

72.0

72.0

72.0

Male

26

28.0

28.0

100.0

Total

93

100.0

100.0

 

The
male/female samples are not equal. This means that if other variables are not
distributed equally by gender the result of difference between genders types
may be explained as result of difference between Handedness or Age variables.
This will be checked later.

Table
1.2 Handedness

 

Frequency

Percent

Valid
Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Right

86

92.5

92.5

92.5

Left

7

7.5

7.5

100.0

Total

93

100.0

100.0

 

This table shows that count of
left handed people are less then Right. Only 7.5% of group population is left
handed.

 

 

 

Charts
1.3. Age distribution
with outliers check

Chart 1.3
shows that only one outlier within age data. To investigate ARDs by age the age
variable was divided onto 3 groups: Young with age between “18-29”, Middle aged
group “30-39” , and “40+” age group. Such division meets the requirement that
at least 6 participants have to be in each group.

 

Table
1.4 Age groups

 

Frequency

Percent

Valid
Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

18-29

54

58.1

58.1

58.1

30-39

26

28.0

28.0

86.0

40+

13

14.0

14.0

100.0

Total

93

100.0

100.0

 

This table
shows that frequency of answers in each group is greater than 6 answers
requirement.

Table 1.5. Gender * Handedness Crosstabulation

 

Handedness

Total

Right

Left

Gender

Female

63

4

67

Male

23

3

26

Total

86

7

93

Chi-squre test
p=0.361>0.05. This means that there are not observable differences between
counts of handedness population within gender groups. This means that genders
are equally distributed between handedness groups, and there is not
relationship between gender and handedness. This means that result of further
differences between handedness is not a result of differences between genders
and reverse.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1.6. Gender * AgeGroup Crosstabulation

 

AgeGroup

Total

18-29

30-39

40+

Gender

Female

37

19

11

67

Male

17

7

2

26

Total

54

26

13

93

Chi-squre test
p=0.505>0.05. This means that there are not observable differences between
counts of age group’s population within gender groups. This means that genders
are equally distributed between age groups, and there is not relationship
between gender and age. This means that result of further differences between
ages is not a result of differences between genders and reverse.

Table 1.7. Gender * AgeGroup Crosstabulation

 

AgeGroup

Total

18-29

30-39

40+

Handedness

Right

51

23

12

86

Left

3

3

1

7

Total

54

26

13

93

Chi-squre test
p=0.637>0.05. This means that there are not observable differences between
counts of age group’s population within Handedness groups. This means that
Handedness groups are equally distributed between age groups, and there is not
relationship between gender and age. This means that result of further
differences between ages is not a result of differences between genders and
reverse.

 

It can be
said, for results from table 1.5 and 1.7, that relationship was not found
because the count of observations for left handed is less than 5. This means
that these results have not statistical inferential power but however this does
not allow making reverse conclusion that relationship is present.

 

Mean
comparison

Age

 

The
mean comparison between age groups shows that there is differences between
ARDSelf bodies measures by age groups p=0.015. And there are not differences in
ARD typical and Ideal by age groups p=0.241 and p=0.503 respectively (Table
2.1).

This
means that actual imagine perceive of Typical and Ideal human bodies are same
for each age group, but bodies become different with age.

 

Table
2.1.1 ANOVA comparison between
age groups

 

Sum
of Squares

df

Mean
Square

F

Sig.

ARDSelf

Between
Groups

12423.104

2

6211.552

4.383

.015

Within
Groups

127553.738

90

1417.264

 

 

Total

139976.842

92

 

 

 

ARDTypical

Between
Groups

5939.756

2

2969.878

1.448

.241

Within
Groups

184646.612

90

2051.629

 

 

Total

190586.369

92

 

 

 

ARDIdeal

Between
Groups

2378.771

2

1189.385

.692

.503

Within
Groups

154628.045

90

1718.089

 

 

Total

157006.816

92

 

 

 

 

Table
2.1.2 shows that there is difference in ARDself between bodies for young and
40+ age. The ARDself for 18-29 participants is higher than for aged “40+”.

 

 

 

Table
2.1.2 Bonferroni post-hoc
tests between age groups (paired t-tests)

Dependent
Variable

(I)
AgeGroup

(J)
AgeGroup

Mean
Difference (I-J)

Std.
Error

Sig.

95%
Confidence Interval

Lower
Bound

Upper
Bound

ARDSelf

18-29

30-39

14.84

8.986

.306

-7.08

36.77

40+

32.49

11.630

.019

4.11

60.86

30-39

18-29

-14.8

8.986

.306

-36.76

7.08

40+

17.64

12.788

.513

-13.55

48.84

40+

18-29

-32.49

11.630

.019

-60.86

-4.11

30-39

-17.64

12.788

.513

-48.84

13.55

 

Gender

Table
2.2.1 Group Statistics by
genders

 

Gender

N

Mean

Std.
Deviation

Std.
Error Mean

ARDSelf

Female

67

42.21

37.732

4.609

Male

26

63.70

38.659

7.582

ARDTypical

Female

67

44.88

46.890

5.729

Male

26

64.27

39.207

7.689

ARDIdeal

Female

67

30.35

36.408

4.448

Male

26

70.02

40.025

7.850

 

This
table shows that there are observable differences between males and females. It
can be seen that each type of ARD mean value is higher for males than for
females.

 

The
statistical significance of these differences was confirmed for ARDSelf and
ARDIdeal, p=0.016 and 0.000 respectively. (Equal variances assumed because
p-values of Levene’s test p=0.695, p=0.365 respectively). For ARDTypical the
difference can be confirmed only on border because p=0.065?0.05, but for 0.05
level of significance the difference has to be rejected of course. (Table
2.2.2).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table
2.2.2 Independent Samples
Test by genders

 

Levene’s
Test for Equality of Variances

t-test
for Equality of Means

F

Sig.

t

df

Sig.
(2-tailed)

Mean
Difference

Std.
Error Difference

95%
Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

ARDSelf

Equal
variances assumed

.154

.695

-2.448

91

.016

-21.486

8.778

-38.921

-4.051

Equal
variances not assumed

 

 

-2.422

44.593

.020

-21.486

8.873

-39.361

-3.611

ARDTypical

Equal
variances assumed

.086

.770

-1.868

91

.065

-19.389

10.377

-40.000

1.224

Equal
variances not assumed

 

 

-2.022

54.137

.048

-19.389

9.589

-38.611

-.166

ARDIdeal

Equal
variances assumed

.829

.365

-4.586

91

.000

-39.665

8.650

-56.847

-22.483

Equal
variances not assumed

 

 

-4.396

41.992

.000

-39.665

9.022

-57.872

-21.457

 

 

 

Handedness

Table
2.3.1 Group Statistics by
handedness

 

Handedness

N

Mean

Std.
Deviation

Std.
Error Mean

ARDSelf

Right

86

47.85

39.478

4.257

Left

7

52.83

34.988

13.224

ARDTypical

Right

86

49.63

46.873

5.054

Left

7

58.45

23.571

8.909

ARDIdeal

Right

86

41.01

41.313

4.455

Left

7

46.80

44.188

16.701

 

Table 2.3.1 shows that ARD of all types for
Left Handedness is higher than for right handedness 52.83>47.85, 58.45>
49.63, 46.80>41.01. The equal variance is assumed for each ARD type
p=0.521>0.05, p=0.113>0.05, and p=0.565 for Self, Typical, and Ideal ARD
respectively. But there are not statistical differences between handedness
groups: p=0.747>0.05, p=0.625>0.05, p=0.723>0.05 for Self, Typical,
and Ideal ARD respectively. This means that there are not differences in ARDs
by handedness groups.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table
2.3.2 Independent Samples
Test by handedness

 

Levene’s
Test for Equality of Variances

t-test
for Equality of Means

F

Sig.

t

df

Sig.
(2-tailed)

Mean
Difference

Std.
Error Difference

95%
Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

ARDSelf

Equal
variances assumed

.416

.521

-.323

91

.747

-4.984

15.406

-35.587

25.619

Equal
variances not assumed

 

 

-.359

7.302

.730

-4.984

13.892

-37.560

27.592

ARDTypical

Equal
variances assumed

2.554

.113

-.491

91

.625

-8.813

17.964

-44.496

26.869

Equal
variances not assumed

 

 

-.860

10.408

.409

-8.813

10.243

-31.515

13.888

ARDIdeal

Equal
variances assumed

.333

.565

-.355

91

.723

-5.797

16.315

-38.204

26.610

Equal
variances not assumed

 

 

-.335

6.882

.747

-5.797

17.285

-46.813

35.219

Body
types

Table
2.4.1 One-Sample Statistics
by ARDs

 

N

Mean

Std.
Deviation

Std.
Error Mean

ARDSelf

93

48.220

39.006

4.045

ARDTypical

93

50.297

45.515

4.720

ARDIdeal

93

41.442

41.311

4.284

 

Table
2.4.2 One-Sample Statistics
by ARDs

 

Test
Value = 0

t

df

Sig.
(2-tailed)

Mean
Difference

95%
Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

ARDSelf

11.922

92

.000

48.22087

40.1876

56.2541

ARDTypical

10.657

92

.000

50.29708

40.9234

59.6707

ARDIdeal

9.674

92

.000

41.44145

32.9336

49.9493

The
results from tables 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 confirm that participants overestimate the
width and the length of their bodies, similar to trend found by Longo, (2015)
but for body’s parts.

Conclusion

            The
research found that participants overestimate the width and the length of
their, typical and ideal bodies. The research shows that Males overestimate their
bodies more than females. This result has on border significance for typical
body and good significance with “0.05” level for other types of ARD. There were
not differences found for typical and ideal body by age groups, but actual body
sizes are different. The young participants aged 18-29 overestimates
self-bodies more than participants aged 40+. There were not found differences
by handedness type, but this conclusion has not big power because left
handedness group has only 7 participants in for comparison. May be distortion
can be found for bigger sample of participants. 

Post Author: admin

x

Hi!
I'm Eileen!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out