Body Image: A Handbook of Science, Practice, and Prevention (2nd Edition)
Linda Smolak, Thomas Cash
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
The standard reference for practitioners, researchers, and students, this acclaimed work brings together internationally recognized experts from diverse mental health, medical, and allied health care disciplines. Contributors review established and emerging theories and findings; probe questions of culture, gender, health, and disorder; and present evidence-based assessment, treatment, and prevention approaches for the full range of body image concerns. Capturing the richness and complexity of the field in a readily accessible format, each of the 53 concise chapters concludes with an informative annotated bibliography.
New to This Edition *Addresses the most urgent current questions in the field. *Reflects significant advances in key areas: assessment, body image in boys and men, obesity, illness-related body image issues, and cross-cultural research. *Conceptual Foundations section now incorporates evolutionary, genetic, and positive psychology perspectives. *Increased coverage of prevention.
130–139.—Examines body image dissatisfaction and its relationship to psy- chosocial functioning in women with scleroderma. Carr, A. J. (1999). Beyond disability: Measuring the social and personal conse- quences of osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 7, 230–238.—Examines the measurement of handicap in patients with OA and RA. Cornwell, C. J., & Schmitt, M. H. (1990). Perceived health status, self-esteem and body image in women with rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythema-
In regard to scar location, some researchers have hypothesized that it is more difficult to adapt to socially visible scars, such as scars on the face, because of the stigmatizing reactions of others. Other researchers have argued that it is more difficult to cope with hidden scars because the person has fewer opportunities to learn how to deal with the reactions of others, so he or she lives in fear of the scar being revealed. The research to date has not provided strong support for
were generally 50% or higher, suggesting that at least 50% of individual differences in body image problems within a population are due to genetic factors. Most studies controlled for body mass index (BMI) in analyses to ensure that the heritability of body image problems is not due to the well-known heritability of body weight. Indeed, body image problems were moderately heritable even after controlling for the effects of body weight. Twin study findings were recently replicated in the
.37–.53 (BAQ) subscales Female preadolescents Klump, Burt, et al. (2010) EDEQ Weight/Shape Concerns .00 (.00–.44) (Combined Scale) Klump et al. (2000) MEBS Body Dissatisfaction .49 MEBS Weight Preoccupation .47 Males Baker et al. (2009) EDI Body Dissatisfaction .40 (.06–.57) EDI Drive for Thinness .20 (.00–.43) Keski-Rahkonen et al. (2005) EDI Body Dissatisfaction .00 EDI Drive for Thinness .00 Wade et al. (2001) b Figure Rating Scale—Current Body Size .00–.54 Figure
sensory (DL) values as the method of constant stim- uli, it does so in a more efficient and less time-consuming fashion. Stable measurements of both values are possible after approximately 20–30 min- utes of data collection. This procedure has been demonstrated to be both reliable and valid in a number of studies by Gardner and his colleagues. The software also permits investigators to use the method of adjustment whereby participants see an initial image that is too thin or too wide and