Drawings or 3D models: Do illustration methods matter when assessing perceived body size and body dissatisfaction?

Abstract

Research has reported that both men and women experience body dissatisfaction. Among other instruments, a widely used method to assess perceived body size and body dissatisfaction are figure rating scales. Although a variety of illustration methods (e.g., three-dimensional, or 3D, models and line-drawing models) have been used to create these figure rating scales, to date, they have not been directly compared to one another. Thus, in the first study, which includes 511 participants at a mean age of 46 years old (range: 20–70), the present research work aims to assess how the line-drawing and 3D model scales, representing different body illustration methods, relate to each other. Furthermore, the first study assesses the validity of the indication of body dissatisfaction measured using these figure rating scales by comparing them to body checking or scrutinizing behavior and body appreciation levels. The project’s second study examines the two figure rating scales using objectively measured anthropometric data. In total, 239 participants at a mean age of 54 years (range: 18–94) were included. The results show that figure rating scales can be considered tools that measure perceptual body image due to their positive correlations with body checking behavior (for women) and their negative correlations with body appreciation. The 3D model and line-drawing scales show good to excellent inter-scale reliability, and both scales agree equally well with body mass index (BMI) measurements. Thus, the 3D model and line-drawing scales both seem well suited for assessing perceived body size and perceptual body dissatisfaction, suggesting that neither illustration method is superior to the other.