Current Psychology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00229-6

Multiple exposure to appearance-focused real accounts

on Instagram: Effects on body image among both genders
Silvia Casale 1 & Gabriele Gemelli 1 & Chiara Calosi 2 & Barbara Giangrasso 1 & Giulia Fioravanti 1

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
This study experimentally investigated the effects of a multiple exposure to appearance-focused real Instagram profile images on
body image among both genders. Experimental group participants were 54 young non-Instagram users (F = 50%) who were
assigned to view a set of appearance-focused real Instagram profiles for a one-week period and were compared with the same-age
non-exposed group (n = 76; F = 50%). Results showed that a multiple exposure to appearance-focused real Instagram profiles of
attractive same-sex people led to greater body dissatisfaction among women. Moreover, women in the experimental group
showed an increase in the extent to which they define themselves and their self-worth by their physical appearance. Among
men, we did not find an effect of exposure to same-sex attractive images on muscular dissatisfaction, fat dissatisfaction, and
investment in body image, although a tendency toward an increment of the scores was observed for all the dependent variables.
Implications for future research on Instagram use and body image are also discussed.

Keywords Body image . Body investment . Social media . Instagram

Negative effects from exposure to idealized media images
presented in fashion magazines or on television on body dis-
satisfaction have been widely documented in the past. Results
from one of the first meta-analytic review in this field support-
ed the sociocultural perspective that mass media promulgate a
slender ideal that elicits body dissatisfaction among women
(Groesz et al. 2002). Subsequent meta-analyses confirmed
that exposure to mass media depicting the thin-ideal body
may be linked to body image disturbance in women (Grabe
* Silvia Casale
silvia.casale@unifi.it
Gabriele Gemelli
gabriele.gemelli@stud.unifi.it
Chiara Calosi
chiara.calosi@stud.unifi.it
Barbara Giangrasso
barbara.giangrasso@unifi.it
Giulia Fioravanti
giulia.fioravanti@unifi.it
1
Department of Health Sciences, Psychology and Psychiatry Unit,
University of Florence, via di San Salvi 12, Florence, Italy
2
School of Psychology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
et al. 2008) and a negative impact on body dissatisfaction was
also reported by review studies focused on men (Blond 2008).
Recently, there has been a growing research interest in the
potential effect of new media (i.e. online social networks) on
body image. Instagram (Ig) is a social networking service used
solely for photo and video sharing, which has risen in popu-
larity, with over 600 million active users (Instagram 2016) of
whom 200 millions are using it on a daily basis (Statista
2017). The number of photos uploaded each day on
Instagram has increased from 80 million photos per day in
2015 (Instagram 2015) to 95 million photos per day in 2016
(Instagram 2016). Since Instagram allows individuals to care-
fully select the personal photos they wish to post and to en-
hance them with filtering and editing tools (see Holland and
Tiggemann 2016), a growing body of research has investigat-
ed the impact of Ig use on body image. The present study
experimentally investigated the effects of a multiple exposure
to appearance-focused real Ig profile images on body image
among both genders.
Background
Body image is a Bmultifaced psychological experience of
embodiment^ that encompasses evaluative thoughts, beliefs,
feelings and behaviors related to one’s own physical

appearance (Cash 2004, p.1). In detailing the multifaced nature
of the construct, Cash (2002) firmly distinguishes between
body evaluation (e.g., body satisfaction) and investment (e.g.,
the psychological importance one places on one’s appearance).
Body evaluation is defined as the subjective evaluation of one’s
body, including weight and shape (i.e. body satisfaction). Body
image investment comprises two components: (a) motivational
salience (i.e., the management of one’s own appearance for
esthetic purposes) and (b) self-evaluative salience (i.e. the use
of appearance as a self-defining feature). Especially body eval-
uation has been the subject of a number of correlational studies
devoted to investigate if the positive association between tradi-
tional media exposure (e.g., idealized media images presented
in fashion magazines or on television) and body image dissat-
isfaction can be extended to the new media (e.g., idealized
images presented on online social networks). These study
found a positive association between Instagram use and body
image concerns (e.g., Cohen et al. 2017; Hendrickse et al.
2017) and a few experimental research studies have also pro-
vided some initial evidence on the subject. In the first experi-
mental study in this area, Tiggemann and Zaccardo (2015)
found that exposure to fitness-inspiring images but not travel
images leads to increased body dissatisfaction. Brown and
Tiggemann (2016) found that exposure to images of
celebrities and unknown attractive peers increased body
dissatisfaction compared to exposure to travel images.
Recently, Tiggemann et al. (2018) experimentally investigated
the effect of the numbers of Blikes^ accompanying Instagram
images on women’s body dissatisfaction in order to explore the
impact of more naturalistic exposure to social media images.
Results showed that exposure to thin-ideal images lead to great-
er body and facial dissatisfaction (i.e. dissatisfaction with facial
features) than average images. Finally, Kleemans et al. (2018)
conducted an experiment to investigate the effect of manipulat-
ed Instagram photos (i.e. improved pictures of faces and bod-
ies) compared to original Instagram photos on body satisfac-
tion. This study found that exposure to manipulated Instagram
photos leads to lower body satisfaction in comparison to expo-
sure to non-manipulated selfies.
All these studies are extremely important, as taken together,
they suggest that the well-demonstrated positive association
between traditional media exposure and body image dissatis-
faction (e.g., Levine and Murnen 2009; Tiggemann 2005a)
might be at least in part extended to new media, even after
only a brief exposure to attractive images. This suggestion has
been also supported by a recent study which showed that
comparisons through social media are associated with more
negative outcomes on body image than comparisons made in
person (Fardouly et al. 2017).
Although the link between exposure to attractive images
via Instagram and body dissatisfaction has been confirmed
through methodologically sound researches, fewer studies
have paid attention to the association between Instagram use
Curr Psychol
and the other main component of body image – i.e. body
investment. This is curios for a couple of reasons. First, pro-
cesses of social comparison are generally mentioned to ex-
plain the negative effects of media exposure—including
Instagram—on body satisfaction (Hendrickse et al. 2017;
Tiggemann et al. 2018). Social comparison theory (Festinger
1954) argues that individuals have a tendency to rate and
evaluate themselves through comparisons with others. Such
comparisons-based evaluations might account for an incre-
ment in body investment since research has consistently
shown that comparisons with media appearance ideals is pos-
itively associated not only with lower levels of body satisfac-
tion but also with higher levels of body image investment
(Rousseau et al. 2017). Moreover, research has shown that
more internalization of the ideal proposed by the media was
significantly related to more investment in one’s own appear-
ance (Argyrides 2013). A positive association between expo-
sure to attractive images and body investment would also be
consistent with communication theories that argue that repeat-
ed exposure to media content leads viewers to accept media
portrayals as representations of reality (e.g., cultivation theory,
see Gerbner et al. 2002; social learning theory, Brown 2002).
In this case, it is believed that the media’s depiction of a thin
ideal leads women to see this ideal as normative and central to
attractiveness. Adopting this reality might lead not only to
decreased satisfaction with one’s own body but also to man-
age one’s own appearance to meet this ideal (i.e. an increment
in the motivational salience component of the body invest-
ment construct). Second, dysfunctional investment in body
image seems to have more adverse consequences than body
dissatisfaction in terms of risk for developing psychiatric
symptoms. Prior research (e.g., Cash et al. 2004a; Cash et al.
2004b) has shown that investment in one’s own body appear-
ance adds a significant amount of variance in explaining psy-
chiatric symptoms beyond that already explained by body
dissatisfaction. Similarly, Jakatdar et al. (2006) found that
body image investment predicted both symptoms of eating
disorders and poor quality of life above and beyond body
dissatisfaction. Additionally, it has already been found that
women high in body investment experienced more negative
consequences following exposure to thin-ideal media than did
women that were less invested (Ip and Jarry 2008). To the best
of our knowledge, the association between exposure to attrac-
tive images via Instagram and body investment has never been
explored.
Limitations of the Existing Literature
As above described, the absence of empirical investigation on
the potential effect of exposure to Ig attractive images on body
investment represents an important theoretical gap that needs
to be filled. In addition, our ability to answer the foundational
Curr Psychol
questions about the relation between Ig use and body image is
limited in several ways because of some methodological is-
sues. First, experimental research in this field evaluated the
effects of the exposure on body image immediately after one-
time exposure to Instagram images. This might limit the inter-
nal validity of the studies, as even if an effect on body image
was found, it would be possible for the conclusions at this time
not to be extended to a later period, or, by contrast, the effect
found could increase over time as a consequence of a multiple
exposure. Indeed, previous longitudinal studies (de Vries et al.
2015) have shown that the association between social media
use and body image dissatisfaction strengthens over time.
Unfortunately, on the one hand, all previous studies imple-
mented one-time exposure research design. On the other hand,
they did not control for the previous exposure to attractive
images via Instagram. This implies that the repeatedly detect-
ed effects on body image might be due to previous exposure to
attractive images on Instagram. Especially when investigating
body investment, there is a need to control for previous
Instagram use as it is plausible to suppose a bidirectional effect
between one’s own body investment and appearance-focused
activities on Instagram (i.e., those who attach greater impor-
tance to physical appearance will be more likely to possess an
Instagram account and to share appearance images).
Second, as already mentioned, all previous experimental
studies examined the effect of one-time exposure to Ig images.
This is a limit in that the limited experimental exposure is not
representative of the actual exposure that people experience
(Slater et al. 2017). Moreover, one-time exposure might not be
sufficient to put body image of a resilient person at risk.
Third, self-esteem was rarely considered by previous studies
as a control variable. Recent research has shown that under-
graduates with low self-esteem are increasingly likely to report
discontent with their body size or shape (e.g. Pop 2016), re-
gardless of age and gender (see O’Dea 2012). In fact, the asso-
ciation between self-esteem and body image concerns has been
well-established (e.g., van den Berg et al. 2010), even if pro-
spective studies highlighted that body dissatisfaction might be
more responsible of self-esteem decrement than vice versa
(Tiggemann 2005b), thus suggesting a complex bidirectional
link. A strong sense of self-worth is likely to help young people
becoming more resistant to the unrealistic body ideals present-
ed in the media, acting as a moderating variable especially
among men (Ricciardelli and McCabe 2001). Taken together,
these results suggest the rationality of assessing self-esteem
levels when investigating the effect of the exposure to attractive
images on body dissatisfaction and investment.
Fourth, men were excluded by all previous experimental
research on the effects of attractive images exposure on body
image. Even if body image concerns are more salient among
young women than in young men, correlational studies con-
sistently show that social media usage is associated with body
image concerns among both women and men (see Fardouly
and Vartanian 2016). Moreover, an extensive review (Blond
2008) of experimental studies exposing men to advertisements
or commercials featuring idealized male bodies has shown
that exposure to images of idealized male bodies has a small
but statistically significant negative impact on body dissatis-
faction. In keeping with research on media exposure and fe-
male body image, body investment has received less scientific
attention relative to body dissatisfaction. Most studies suggest
that men attach less importance to their own appearance than
women (see Grogan 2012). Moreover, it has been shown that
if the muscular ideal (i.e. the socially prescribed body size and
shape for men, see Thompson and Cafri 2007) is internalized,
it is not as influential as internalization of the thin ideal is for
females in determining commitment to defining the self in
terms of weight and/or muscularity (Levine and Chapman
2012). Taken together, previous findings advise that the effect
of media exposure on body image concerns among men
should not be completely neglected. However, previous find-
ings also suggest that this effect is likely to be less strong
among men relative to women.
The Present Study
The present study aims to build upon previous research by a)
including the psychological investment in the physical appear-
ance as a dependent variable; b) recruiting a sample of partic-
ipants who did not have previous contact with Instagram; c)
considering a multiple exposure to attractive images, and d)
including men in the sample. On the basis of the existing
research, we predicted that being repeatedly exposed to attrac-
tive images will negatively affect both body dissatisfaction
and body investment among women and men. Based on the
existing literature, we hypothesized that the effect of the ex-
posure on women may be more pronounced than its effect on
males.
Method
Research Design
A quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test control group design
was implemented. The dependent variables were psychologi-
cal investment in the physical appearance and body dissatis-
faction. Self-esteem was tested as a control variable.
Participants
The experimental group comprised 54 college students (50%
women), and the control group comprised 76 college students
(50% women). To determine whether the sample size was
adequate, a power analysis was conducted using G*Power

(Faul et al. 2007). Assuming a medium-sized effect (partial
η2 = .06) and an alpha level of .05, power analysis results
indicated that 24 participants (12 per group) would be neces-
sary to achieve a power of .80 (Cohen 1992), suggesting that
analyses could be conducted separately for men and women.
No significant differences were found regarding age be-
tween women and men (respectively M ± SD = 23.22 + 1.73
and M ± SD = 23.29 + 1.77, F(1,128) = 0.63, n.s.). No signifi-
cant differences were found in age neither between the exper-
imental women and the control women (respectively M ±
SD = 22.93 ± 1.96 and M ± SD = 23.42 ± 1.53, F(1,63) = 1.30,
n.s.) nor between the experimental men and the control men
(respectively M ± SD = 23.19 ± 1.68 and M ± SD = 23.37 ±
1.85, F (1 ,63) = 0.16, n.s.). All the participants were
Caucasians. Participation was on a voluntary basis, and the
participants did not receive incentives for their participation.
Experimental Stimuli
An initial pool of 120 public Instagram profiles (50% female
profiles) mainly focused on the appearance of unknown
young people was tested by 10 independent raters aged 20–
25 years old who were blinded to the purposes of the study. In
order to be considered as an appearance-based profile, the
profile was required to have at least 70% of photos concerning
personal appearance (photos of themselves, their own face or
their body parts). One independent rater checked each day for
a week that the 120 Instagram profile was updated on a daily
basis mainly with images of one’s body. Five men and women
evaluated 60 male and female profiles, respectively.
Fifteen male and 20 female Instagram profiles were select-
ed from the initial pool on the basis of rating of attractiveness
(from 1 = extremely unattractive to 5 = extremely attractive).
Profiles were included as stimulus materials if all the indepen-
dent raters evaluated the owner of the profile as Bextremely
attractive.^ The profiles were of people of Caucasian descent
(like all the participants of the sample).
Measures
Psychological Investment The Appearance Schemas
Inventory-Revised (ASI-R; Cash 2009) is a revision of Cash
and Labarge’s (1996) original assessment of individuals’ psy-
chological investment in their physical appearance. This 20-
item measure consists of two subscales. Self-Evaluative
Salience subscale (12 items; pre-test Cronbach’s alpha in the
current sample was α = .85) reflects the extent to which indi-
viduals define or measure themselves and their self-worth by
their physical appearance, which they deem influential in their
social and emotional experiences. Motivational Salience sub-
scale (8 items; pre-test Cronbach’s alpha in the current sample
was α = .79) pertains to the extent to which persons attend to
their appearance and engage in appearance-management
Curr Psychol
behaviors. Participants respond on a 5-point Likert scale from
1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree. In the current
study, the Italian version of the ASI-R was obtained using a
back-translation method in which one bilingual translator
translated the test from the source language to the target lan-
guage (Italian). A second translator, without having seen the
original test, translated the new version of the test back to the
source language. The original and the back-translated version
of the tests were then compared and judgments were made
about their equivalence.
Body Dissatisfaction The Contour Drawing Rating Scale
(CDRS; Thompson and Gray 1995) consists of nine female
contour drawings, and it was used to assess women’s body
dissatisfaction. These silhouette forms present participants
with several body silhouettes of women ranging from very
slender to obese. The drawings were designed with detailed
features, are of precisely graduated sizes, and are easily split at
the waist for accurate upper and lower body comparisons.
Participants are asked to select the figure that better represents
their current body and the figure that better represents their
ideal body. Body dissatisfaction is then measured as the dif-
ference between individual’s rating of their current body and
the body they would most like to possess. Higher scores indi-
cate higher body dissatisfaction.
In order to assess men’s body dissatisfaction, we used the
silhouette forms developed by Frederick et al. (2007) that
separately assess muscularity (the Muscle Silhouette
Measure, MSM) and body fat level (the Fat Silhouette
Measure, FSM). Because men’s body dissatisfaction might
entail the desire to be slimmer or heavier (Drewnowski and
Yee 1987), we analyzed absolute values rather than signed
discrepancies in order to avoid erroneous conclusions as sug-
gested by previous studies (Cash et al. 2004c). Higher scores
indicate higher muscle and fat dissatisfaction.
Self-Esteem Self-esteem was assessed as a control variable
through the Italian version (Prezza et al. 1997) of the 10-
item Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (Rosenberg 1965). Each
item was answered on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 =
completely disagree to 5 = completely agree). Higher scores
indicate higher self-esteem. Pre-test Cronbach’s alpha in the
current sample was α = .89.
Procedure
Instagram is a complex multi-faceted platform in that it pro-
vides a variety of different activities and components (i.e.,
viewing others’ images; making comments; posting one’s
own images; receiving comments; receiving likes; viewing
likes received by others). In order to control for the effect of
these potential confounding factors, the participants were re-
quired to have never had an Instagram account.
Curr Psychol
Two research assistants approached undergraduates stu-
dents from the University of **** after their lessons and asked
them if they had an Instagram account. All those who
responded Bno^ (21.67%) were asked about their willingness
to participate in a research concerning psychological dimen-
sions associated to Instagram use. All those who were asked
accepted to participate (n = 130). Students who accepted were
invited to a meeting room at the University to sing the in-
formed consent and complete the questionnaires. The partici-
pants were assigned to the experimental condition or the con-
trol group on the basis of their willingness to open an
Instagram account for a one-week period.
An Instagram account was created for each participant of
the experimental group. Only the unknown attractive same
sex profiles were added to the Instagram profile. The profile
was private in order to guarantee that nobody but the experi-
menter could have contacted the participant. After providing
consent, participants from both the experimental and the con-
trol group completed the pre-test measures. Participants from
the experimental group were asked to attend the Instagram
profiles every evening for 1 week and to attach like to each
of the new-posted photographs in order to be sure that they
were exposed to the attractive images. Moreover, each eve-
ning, the experimenter blinded to the purposes of the study
contacted each participant from the experimental group and
asked questions about details of the new-posted photographs
(e.g., the color of the paints). All participants attached Blike^
to each photograph and answered each question about the
asked details. As a consequence, no participant was excluded
from the statistical analyses as the multiple exposure to the
attractive images was guaranteed.
The survey was re-administered after 8 days to participants
to both the experimental and the control group. The study was
approved by the Director of the Department of Psychology at
the University of ****.
Data Analyses
As the first step, the baseline equivalence of the experimental
and control groups was tested using one-way ANOVA. As the
second step, we analyzed the experimental manipulation ef-
fect conducting a Mixed 2 × 2 ANOVA with Time (pre- and
post-test) as within factor and Group (experimental and con-
trol) as between factor for each dependent variable. All anal-
yses were conducted separately for women and men.
Results
Women
As shown in Table 1, no significant differences were found on
the initial levels of body dissatisfaction and ASI-R Self-
evaluative Salience between the experimental and control
groups. No significant differences were found between the
experimental and control groups on self-esteem initial levels.
Consequently, we did not control for self-esteem in the hy-
potheses testing. On the contrary, significant differences were
found on the initial levels of ASI-R Motivational Salience
with the experimental group scoring higher than the control
group. For this reason, the effect of the experimental manipu-
lation was tested only on body dissatisfaction and ASI-R Self-
evaluative Salience and the ASI-R Motivational Salience
scores were added as covariate in the analysis in order to
control for the effect on the dependent variables.
A mixed 2 × 2 ANOVA showed a significant effect of Time
x Group Interaction on body dissatisfaction (F(1,63) = 4.21,
p < .05; partial η2 = .06). T-tests showed that this effect is
due to the experimental manipulation as a significant incre-
ment in body dissatisfaction was observed in the experimental
group [t (26) = − 2.21, p < .05, d = 0.26) from pre-test
(M + SD = 1.22 + 1.22) to post-test (M + SD = 1.56 + 1.21)
among women exposed to attractive images, while no signif-
icant changes occurred in the control group [t(37) = 0.92,
p = .36] from pre-test (M + SD = 0.82 + 1.25) to post-test
(M + SD = 0.66 + 1.56). Results are shown in Fig. 1.
Moreover, when the baseline levels of the ASI-R motivational
subscale were added as covariate, the effect of Time x Group
Interaction on body dissatisfaction remained significant
(F(1,63) = 4.08, p < .05; partial η2 = .06) and no significant in-
teraction effect of TimeXCovariate was obtained.
A significant effect of Time x Group Interaction on ASI-R
Self-evaluative Salience was also found (F(1,63) = 7.75,
p < .01; partial η2 = .11). When the baseline levels of the
ASI-R motivational subscale were added as covariate, the ef-
fect of Time x Group Interaction on ASI-R Self-evaluative
Salience remained significant (F(1,63) = 7.64 p < .01; partial
η 2 = .11) and no significant interaction effect of
TimeXCovariate was obtained. T-tests showed a trend toward
significance [t (26) = − 1.90, p = .0.69, d = 0.14) in Self-
evaluative Salience in the experimental group from pre-test
(M + SD = 38.74 + 8.03) to post-test (M + SD =
39.85 + 7.97). However, we also found a significant decre-
ment [t(37) = 2.42, p < .05, d = 0.17] from pre-test (M + SD =
36.87 + 7.96) to post-test (M + SD = 35.34 + 7.04) among
those who were not exposed to attractive images. Results are
shown in Fig. 2.
Men
As shown in Table 2, no significant differences were found
between the experimental and control groups on the initial
levels of body dissatisfaction, ASI-R Self-evaluative
Salience, and ASI-R Motivational Salience.
Experimental manipulation effect was tested by performing
a series of Mixed 2 × 2 ANOVA with Time (pre- and post-test)
 Curr Psychol

Table 1 Mean Comparisons

(One-Way ANOVA) on the initial Variable Experimental group (n = 27) Control group (n = 38) F(1,63) p η2
levels of study variables between M + SD M + SD
the experimental and control
groups among women Control variable
Self-esteem 30.55 + 4.54 29.21 + 6.21 0.92 .34 –
Dependent variables
Body dissatisfaction 1.22 + 1.22 0.81 + 1.25 1.70 .20 –
ASI - Self-Evaluative 38.74 + 8.03 36.86 + 7.96 0.87 .35 –
Salience
ASI - Motivational 28.29 + 4.66 25.90 + 4.73 4.26* .04 .03
Salience

as a within factor and Group (experimental and control) as a
between factor. As shown in Table 3, no significant interaction
effect was obtained for the dependent variables among men.
Discussion
The present study aimed to extend the experimental investi-
gation of Instagram use and body image by a) including body
investment, b) considering a multiple exposure to attractive
images and controlling for previous Instagram use, and c)
including men. We also aimed to provide more ecological
findings in that the participants were exposed to actual
Instagram accounts. As the first finding, our study confirmed
all the previous experimental results (e.g., Brown and
Tiggemann 2016; Tiggemann and Zaccardo 2015) on the ef-
fect of attractive images via Instagram on body dissatisfaction
levels among women. Previous findings were confirmed but
were also extended as we controlled for the previous exposure
to attractive images via Instagram by recruiting people who
never had an Instagram account. Moreover, previous findings
were extended as we found evidence for the existence of the
effect over the time rather than as immediate response after the
manipulation.
Results of this study also show a tendency toward an in-
crement of the ASI-R Self-evaluative Salience scores, with
women exposed to attractive images showing an increase in
the extent to which they define themselves and their self-
worth by their physical appearance. This is particularly impor-
tant as the ASI-R Self-evaluative factor revealed more dys-
functional nature relative to the ASI-R Motivational Salience
factor with respect to a variety of outcomes (Jakatdar et al.
2006). However, we also noted that ASI-R Self-evaluative
scores showed significant decrement in the control group.
Given that Instagram use is widespread among young people,
the refusal to open an Instagram account might be considered
as an uncommon behavior. One possible explanation is that
women refusing to open an Instagram account and reporting
lower body investment on the post-test scores may have been
defensive in an effort to maintain and protect self-esteem do-
mains. However, we recognize that this is no more than a
speculation and further research is needed.
We found that both women and men of the control group
obtained lower pre-test scores in all the measures, even if the
statistical significance was reached only for the ASI-R

Fig. 1 Effect of Time x Group

Interaction on body
dissatisfaction among women
Curr Psychol

Fig. 2 Effect of Time x Group

Interaction on ASI-R Self-evalu-
ative Salience among women

Motivational Salience factor among women. In the current
study, the subjects were assigned to the control group on the
basis of their unwillingness to open an Instagram account and
vice versa (the experimental group comprised persons willing
to open the account with no incentives given). This suggests
that those who open an Instagram account might already have
concerns about body image to some extent, and as a conse-
quence, they might be more vulnerable to an increment in
body dissatisfaction and/or body investment. Given that the
body dissatisfaction/investment scores were higher in the ex-
perimental group, the findings from the present study seems to
confirm this possibility. However, one of the few longitudinal
studies in this field (e.g., de Vries et al. 2015) has shown that
body dissatisfaction did not predict social media usage, sug-
gesting that social media negatively impacts people’s body
image, rather than social media being sought out by those with
high levels of body dissatisfaction.
We did not find an effect of the exposure to same-sex at-
tractive images on any of the dependent variables among men
even if a tendency to an increment in the scores was observed
for all the dependent variables. One possible explanation is
provided by the huge amount of empirical evidence available
regarding the lower salience on body image among men rela-
tive to women, which is also the reason why none of the
previous experimental research in this field included men.
However, the score increment in all the measures at the post-
test suggests that this population should not be neglected. It is
possible that because of the lower salience of body image,
more exposure is needed in order to detect an effect on men.
It is also possible that male population is less homogeneous
with regard to body dissatisfaction and/or body investment
relative to women.
The present study has a number of limitations, which need
to be considered. The first main limitation has been already
mentioned, and it is related to the fact that the random assign-
ment of subjects to the groups was not possible. As a conse-
quence, the external validity of the present study is threatened
by the fact that the findings obtained should be only general-
ized to those who are willing to open an Instagram account.
Even if the majority of the studies report that Instagram is very
widespread among young people (e.g., Perrin et al. 2015), the
current study shows that some of them might not be interested
at all in opening an Instagram account. Future research should
give a closer look to this not-interested small population.

Table 2 Mean Comparisons

(One-Way ANOVA) on initial Variable Experimental group (n = 27) Control group (n = 38) F(1,63) p
levels of study variables between M + SD M + SD
the experimental and control
groups among men Control variable
Self-esteem 30.40 + 5.30 30.97 + 5.38 0.18 .68
Dependent variables
Muscular dissatisfaction 1.44 + 1.12 1.18 + 1.09 0.88 .35
Fat dissatisfaction 0.22 + 1.25 0.18 + 1.03 0.02 .89
ASI- Self-Evaluative 34.74 + 6.87 32.94 + 8.23 0.86 .36
Salience
ASI- Motivational 26.96 + 5.91 25.76 + 5.10 0.76 .38
Salience

Table 3 Effect of experimental manipulation among men
Measures Pre-test M + SD Post-test M + SD F(1,63) p
Muscular Dissatisfaction
Experimental group 1.44 + 1.12 1.74 + 1.25 1.91
Control group 1.18 + 1.08 1.18 + 1.13
Fat Dissatisfaction
Experimental group 0.22 + 1.25 0.22 + 1.55 0.57
Control group 0.18 + 1.03 0.05 + .98
ASI-R Self-Evaluative Salience
Experimental group 34.74 + 6.87 35.66 + 7.82 0.77
Control group 32.94 + 8.23 32.89 + 7.97
ASI-R Motivational Salience
Experimental group 26.96 + 5.91 27.85 + 4.79 2.89
Control group 25.76 + 5.10 24.92 + 5.99
Second, participants were asked to view the Instagram pro-
files in a way that they probably would not do in a naturalistic
setting. We do not know whether experimental group partici-
pants would have been interested to follow appearance-based
Instagram profiles of very attractive same-sex people. Indeed,
the social comparison theory (Festinger 1954) argued that
people seek out comparison with others perceived as similar
to themselves, and we did not control for similarity perception
in the current study. However, Brown and Tiggemann (2016)
found no differences on body dissatisfaction between women
exposed to peer images and women exposed to celebrity im-
ages. In general, a large body of research documented the
effect of exposure to thin fashion images on body image con-
cerns. Thus, it is possible that different mediators beyond so-
cial comparison might explain the association between expo-
sure to celebrity images and an increase in body dissatisfac-
tion. Third, the sample consisted of college Caucasian stu-
dents, and thus, the results may not be generalizable to other
populations. For example, adolescents might be more vulner-
able to being influenced by media images (e.g., Borzekowski
et al. 2000). Fourth, we did not control for the actual exposure
that participants had on Instagram imagery (i.e. we only de-
fined the minimum attendance), and some participants might
have spent more time than others. Moreover, recent experi-
mental research (Kleemans et al. 2018) has shown that expo-
sure to manipulated Instagram photos led to lower body satis-
faction than original photos. However, as all the previous ex-
perimental research in this field, Kleemans and colleagues
(Kleemans et al. 2018) used a one-time exposure design, thus
not giving information about the stability of the effect. As a
consequence, it would be interesting to replicate the study by
comparing original and manipulated photos. Fifthly, data for
men and women were analysed separately, and thus compar-
isons across gender cannot be made. Finally, we used the
silhouette methodology to assess body dissatisfaction, which
Curr Psychol
has been widely criticized (e.g., Gardner et al. 1998) for the
finite number of drawings and for the restriction of range.
Despite these limitations, the current study contributes the
growing body of literature by highlighting that prolonged ex-
.17 posure to appearance-based Instagram profiles of very attrac-
tive same-sex people might not only increase body dissatis-
faction but also body investment, at least among women.
.45 Future research should pay more attention to this body image
component as a large body of research has demonstrated its
negative impact on psychological well-being and on vulnera-
.38 bility for eating disorder development (Cash et al. 2004a;
Cash et al. 2004b).
Despite the repeatedly demonstrated effect of Instagram
.09 use on body image concerns, early adolescent girls tend to
minimize the influence of social media on body image
(Burnette et al. 2017). At the practical level, this suggests that
knowledge and awareness about the negative effects of
appearance-focused activities on Instagram should be a focus
of preventive intervention, especially among young women.
Data Availability The dataset analyzed during the current study is not yet
publicly available because the authors are waiting for the consent from 7
participants to public the data on an open platform. However, the data are
available from the corresponding author on request from the Editor/
reviewers.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Ethical Approval BAll procedures performed in studies involving hu-
man participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the
institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964
Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical
standards.^
References
Argyrides, M. (2013). Mass media, feelings of attractiveness, investment
in body image and disorder eating in Cyprus. Mediterranean e-
journal of Communication and Media, 2, 1–8.
Blond, A. (2008). Impacts of exposure to images of ideal bodies on male
body dissatisfaction: A review. Body Image, 5, 244–250.
Borzekowski, D. L. G., Robinson, T. N., & Killen, J. D. (2000). Dose the
camera adds 10 pounds? Media use, perceived importance of ap-
pearance and weight concerns among teenage girls. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 26, 36–41.
Brown, J. D. (2002). Mass media influences on sexuality. Journal of Sex
Research, 39, 42–45.
Brown, Z. A., & Tiggemann, M. (2016). Attractive celebrity and peer
images on Instagram: Effect on women's mood and body image.
Body Image, 19, 37–43.
Burnette, B. C., Kwitowski, M. A., & Mazzeo, S. E. (2017). BI don’t need
people to tell me I’m pretty on social media:^ a qualitative study of
Curr Psychol
social media and body image in early adolescent girls. Body Image,
23, 114–125.
Cash, T. F. (2002). Cognitive behavioral perspectives on body image. In
T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: An handbook of
theory, research and clinical practice (pp. 38–46). New York:
Guilford Press.
Cash, T. F. (2004). Body image: Past, present and future. Body Image: An
International Journal of Research, 1, 1–5.
Cash, T. F. (2009). Brief manual for the appearance schemas inventory-
revised. Available from the author at www.body-images.com.
Cash, T. F., & Labarge, A. S. (1996). Development of the appearance
schemas inventory: A new cognitive body image assessment.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 20, 37–50.
Cash, T. F., Melnik, S. E., & Hraboski, J. I. (2004a). The assessment of
body image investment: An extensive revision of the appearance
schemas inventory. The International Journal of Eating Disorders,
35, 305–316.
Cash, T. F., Phillips, K. A., Santos, M. T., & Hraboski, J. I. (2004b).
Measuring negative body image: Validation of the body image dis-
turbance questionnaire in a nonclinical population. Body Image, 1,
363–372.
Cash, T. F., Morrow, J. A., Hrabosky, J. I., & Perry, A. A. (2004c). How
has body image changed? A cross-sectional investigation of college
women and men from 1983 to 2001. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 72, 1081–1089.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
Cohen, R., Newton-John, T., & Slater, A. (2017). The relationship be-
tween Facebook and Instagram appearance-focused activities and
body image concerns in young women. Body Image, 23, 183–187.
de Vries, D. A., Peter, J., de Graaf, H., & Nikken, P. (2015). Adolescents’
social network site use, peer appearance-related feedback, and body
dissatisfaction: Testing a mediation model. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 45, 211–224.
Drewnowski, A., & Yee, D. K. (1987). Men and body image: Are males
satisfied with their body weight? Psychosomatic Medicine, 49, 626–
634.
Fardouly, J., & Vartanian, L. R. (2016). Social media and body image
concerns: Current research and future directions. Current Opinion in
Psychology, 9, 1–5.
Fardouly, J., Pinkus, R. T., & Vartanian, L. R. (2017). The impact of
appearance comparisons made thorugh social media, traditional me-
dia, and in person in women’s everyday lives. Body Image, 20, 31–
39.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*power 3: A
flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral,
and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human
Relations, 7, 117–140.
Frederick, D. A., Buchanan, G. M., Sadehgi-Azar, L., Peplau, L. A.,
Haselton, M. G., Berezovskaya, A., & Lipinski, R. E. (2007).
Desiring the muscular ideal: Men's body satisfaction in the United
States, Ukraine, and Ghana. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8,
103–117.
Gardner, R. M., Friedman, B. N., & Jackson, N. A. (1998).
Methodological concerns when using silhouettes to measure body
image. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 387–395.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., & Morgan, M. (2002). Growing up with televi-
sion: Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media
effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 43–67).
Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Grabe, S., Ward, L. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2008). The role of the media in
body image concerns among women: A meta-analysis of experi-
mental and correlational studies. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 460–
476.
Groesz, L. M., Levine, M. P., & Murnen, S. K. (2002). The effect of
experimental presentation of thin media images on body
satisfaction: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of
Eating Disorders, 31, 1–16.
Grogan, S. (2012). Body image development in adulthood. In T. F. Cash
& L. Smolak (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of science, practice,
and prevention (pp. 93–100). New York: The Guilford Press.
Hendrickse, J. M. A., Arpan, L. M., Clayton, R. B., & Ridgway, J. L.
(2017). Instagram and college women’s body image: Investigating
the roles of appearance-related comparisons and intrasexual compe-
tition. Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 92–100.
Holland, G., & Tiggemann, M. (2016). A systematic review of the impact
of the use of social networking sites on body image and disorder
eating outcomes. Body Image, 17, 100–110.
Instagram (2015). Instagram statistics. Retrieved from https://www.
instagram.com/press/.
Instagram (2016). Instagram statistics. Retrieved from https://www.
instagram.com/press/
Ip, K., & Jarry, J. L. (2008). Investment in body image for self-definition
results in greater vulnerability to the thin media than does invest-
ment in appearance management. Body Image, 5, 59–69.
Jakatdar, T. A., Cash, T. F., & Engle, E. K. (2006). Body image thought
processes: The development and initial validation of the assessment
of body-image cognitive distortions. Body Image, 3, 325–333.
Kleemans, M., Daalmans, S., Carbaat, I., & Anschütz, D. (2018). Picture
perfect: The direct effect of manipulated Instagram photos on body
image in adolescent girls. Media Psychology, 21, 93–110.
Levine, M. P., & Chapman, K. (2012). Media influences on body image.
In T. F. Cash & L. Smolak (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of
science, practice, and prevention (pp. 101–109). New York: The
Guilford Press.
Levine, M. P., & Murnen, S. K. (2009). BEverybody knows that mass
media are/are not (pick one) a cause of eating disorders^: A critical
review of evidence for a causal link between media, negative body
image, and disorder eating in women. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 28, 9–42.
O’Dea, J. A. (2012). Body image and self-esteem. Encyclopedia of Body
Image and Human Appearance, 141–147.
Perrin, A., Duggan, M., Rainie, L., Smith, A., Greenwood, S., Porteus,
M., et al. (2015). Social media usage: 2005–2015. Pew Research
Center.
Pop, C. (2016). Self-esteem and body image perception in a sample of
university students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research,
16(64), 31–44.
Prezza, M., Trombaccia, F. R., & Armento, L. (1997). La scala
dell'autostima di Rosenberg: Traduzione e validazione Italiana
[The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Italian translation and valida-
tion]. Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata, 223, 35–44.
Ricciardelli, L. A., & McCabe, M. P. (2001). Self-esteem and negative
affect as moderators of sociocultural influences on body dissatisfac-
tion, strategies to decrease weight, and strategies to increase muscles
among adolescent boys and girls. Sex Roles, 44, 189–207.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and adolescent self-image. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Rousseau, A., Gamble, H., & Eggermont, S. (2017). The role of appear-
ance schematicity in the internalization of media appearance ideals:
A panel study of preadolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 60, 27–38.
Slater, A., Varsani, N., & Diedrichs, P. C. (2017). #fitspo or
#loveyourself? The impact of fitspiration and self-compassion
Instagram images on women’s body image, self-compassion, and
mood. Body Image, 22, 87–96.
Statista (2017). Instagram daily active users 2017. Retrieved from https://
www.statista.com/statistics/657823/number-of-daily-active-
instagram-users
Thompson, J. K., & Cafri, J. (2007). The muscular ideal: Psychological,
social, and medical perspectives. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

Thompson, M. A., & Gray, J. J. (1995). Development and validation of a
new body-image assessment scale. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 64, 258–269.
Tiggemann, M. (2005a). Television and adolescent body image: The role
of program content and viewing motivation. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 24, 361–381.
Tiggemann, M. (2005b). Body dissatisfaction and adolescent self-esteem:
Prospective findings. Body Image, 2, 129–135.
Tiggemann, M., & Zaccardo, M. (2015). BExercise to be fit, not skinny^:
The effect of fit inspiration imagery on women’s body image. Body
Image, 15, 61–67.
Curr Psychol
Tiggemann, M., Hayden, S., Brown, Z., & Veldhuis, J. (2018). The effect
of Instagram Blikes^ on women’s social comparison and body dis-
satisfaction. Body Image, 26, 90–97.
van den Berg, P. A., Mond, J., Eisenberg, M., Ackard, D., & Neumark-
Sztainer, D. (2010). The link between body dissatisfaction and self-
esteem in adolescents: Similarities across gender, age, weight status,
race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 47, 290–296.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.