Search

A recent online experiment found that, following a negative body talk induction task, receiving a response of ignoring the comment, compared with reassuring, reciprocating, and challenging, led to worse body satisfaction and socio-emotional outcomes for Australian women. The current online study aimed to replicate and extend this study by examining the effects of these four negative body talk responses on body satisfaction, shame, and future negative body talk likelihood in UK-based women. Participants (N = 156, Mage = 25.29, SDage = 5.64, rangeage = 18-40) recalled a scenario in which they engaged in negative body talk and were randomly assigned to receive one of four responses. Contrary to hypotheses, there were no significant differences in body satisfaction, shame, or future negative body talk likelihood across the four groups. Preferred negative body talk response data were mixed, with challenge and reassurance responses preferred at comparable rates, and just under a quarter of participants preferring a response outside of the original four. Possible explanations, including that the responses used in the original Australasian study may not perfectly correspond with UK women's experiences of social interactions and heterogeneous motivations for engaging in negative body talk necessitate more nuanced and sophisticated responses, are explored.

A recent online experiment found that, following a negative body talk induction task, receiving a response of ignoring the comment, compared with reassuring, reciprocating, and challenging, led to worse body satisfaction and socio-emotional outcomes for Australian women. The current online study aimed to replicate and extend this study by examining the effects of these four negative body talk responses on body satisfaction, shame, and future negative body talk likelihood in UK-based women. Participants (N = 156, Mage = 25.29, SDage = 5.64, rangeage = 18-40) recalled a scenario in which they engaged in negative body talk and were randomly assigned to receive one of four responses. Contrary to hypotheses, there were no significant differences in body satisfaction, shame, or future negative body talk likelihood across the four groups. Preferred negative body talk response data were mixed, with challenge and reassurance responses preferred at comparable rates, and just under a quarter of participants preferring a response outside of the original four. Possible explanations, including that the responses used in the original Australasian study may not perfectly correspond with UK women’s experiences of social interactions and heterogeneous motivations for engaging in negative body talk necessitate more nuanced and sophisticated responses, are explored.

Background The alcohol consumption patterns of young adults are of concern. Critically, tertiary students consume greater quantities of alcohol, are at increased risk of injury/harm, and have higher rates of alcohol use disorders as compared to their nonuniversity enrolled peers. The Brief Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire (BYAACQ) is one of several tools utilized to explore adverse alcohol-related outcomes among tertiary students. Alcohol intake behavior, assessed via retrospective summary measures, has been linked to BYAACQ score. It is unclear, however, how drinking assessed in real time, in conjunction with variables such as age of drinking onset, might predict severity of adverse alcohol consequences as captured by the BYAACQ. Methods The psychometric properties of the BYAACQ were explored using a large Australian sample of tertiary students (N = 893). A subsample (n = 504) provided alcohol intake information in real time (21 days; event and notification contingent) via a smartphone app (CNLab-A) plus details related to age of drinking onset, drug use, parental alcohol/drug use, and anxiety/depression symptomology. Results Average BYAACQ score was 7.53 (SD = 5.37). Classical and item response theory analyses revealed inconsistencies related to dimensionality, progressive item severity, and male/female differential item functioning. Current drinking-namely, frequency of intake and quantity per drinking occasion-plus age of drinking onset predicted BYAACQ score after controlling for age, other drug use, and depression symptomology. Conclusions The BYAACQ is a sound tool for use with Australian samples. Information related to current drinking, age of drinking onset, and drug use is useful for predicting severity of alcohol use consequences. These markers might enable tertiary institutions to better target students who could benefit from prevention/intervention programs.