Comparison of Body Image between Athletes and Nonathletes: A Meta-Analytic Review

Abstract

Due to the equivocal research examining body image between athletes and nonathletes and the serious negative effects of body image disturbance a meta-analytic review of the literature was undertaken (N = 78 studies, 294 effect sizes). A small effect was found which indicated that athletes had a more positive body image compared to the nonathletes. Examination of the moderator variables revealed that the magnitude of the effect size: (a) for unpublished research was larger compared to published research; (b) for comparison groups which were included within the study was smaller than for comparison groups based on normative data; (c) did not differ between the female athletes compared to the male athletes; (d) did not vary among the aesthetic, endurance, and ball game sport athletes; and (e) did not differ by age or body mass index. Possible explanations for the more positive body image of the athletes than the nonathletes are discussed.

Full text

323BODY IMAGE, ATHLETES
323
JOU RNAL OF AP PLIED SPORT P SYCHOL OGY, 13: 323–339, 2001
Copyrigh t © 2001 b y the Ass ociation for Adv ancement of Applied Spor t Psych ology
1041-3 200/01 $12.00 + .00
Comparison of Body Image between Athletes and
Nonathletes: A Meta-Analytic Review
HEATHER A. HAUSENBLAS AND DANIELLE SYMONS DOWNS
University of Florida
Due to the equivocal research examining body image between athletes and
nonathletes and the serious negative effects of body image disturbance a meta-
analytic review of the literature was undertaken (N = 78 studies, 294 effect sizes).
A small effect was found which indicated that athletes had a more positive body
image compared to the nonathletes. Examination of the moderator variables re-
vealed that the magnitude of the effect size: (a) for unpublished research was
larger compared to published research; (b) for comparison groups which were
included within the study was smaller than for comparison groups based on nor-
mative data; (c) did not differ between the female athletes compared to the male
athletes; (d) did not vary among the aesthetic, endurance, and ball game sport
athletes; and (e) did not differ by age or body mass index. Possible explana-
tions for the more positive body image of the athletes than the nonathletes are
discussed.
Body image is defined as the internal representation of your outer appearance
(Thompson, Heinberg, Altabe, & Tantleff-Dunn, 1999). Disturbances of body
image are prevalent in North America (Cash & Henry, 1995; Garner, 1997), Eu-
rope (Allaz, Berstein, Rouget, Archinard, & Morabia, 1998), and other developed
countries (Maude, Wertheim, Paxton, Gibbons, & Szmukler, 1993) with estimates
ranging depending on the population assessed and the body image measure uti-
lized. For example, large scale survey studies conducted by Psychology Today
reveal that appearance dissatisfaction has increased from 23% to 56% for females
and 15% to 43% for males from 1972 to 1996 (Berscheid, Walster, & Bohrnstedt,
1973; Garner, 1997). The estimated cost of body image disturbance to society and
the individual is excessive and is manifested through, for example, cosmetic sur-
gery, diet products, and mental and physical illnesses (Thompson et al., 1999).
Due to the high prevalence and expense of body image disturbance and its rela-
tionship with negative affect, behaviors, and cognitions, as well as representing a
Manuscript submitted 2 October 2000; revision received 3 April 2001.
Address correspondence to Heather Hausenblas, Ph.D., ESS FLG 146, PO Box 118205,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-8205. Phone: 352-392-0584 ext. 1292; Fax:
352-392-5262. Email: heatherh@ hhp.ufl.edu

324 HAUSENBLAS AND SYMONS DOWNS
diagnostic criteria for bulimia nervosa, anorexia nervosa, and body dsymorphic
disorder (APA, 1994), examining its perpetuating and precipitating factors are
essential to establishing effective prevention and treatment programs.
Several theories have been advanced to explain the acquisition and mainte-
nance of body image disturbance (Thompson et al., 1999). The most empirically
supported theory is sociocultural, which identifies social pressure (e.g., media,
friends, family, teammates) as the impetus for an individual’s desire to conform to
unrealistic body shape standards (Cusumano & Thompson, 1997). T he sociocul-
tural model emphasizes that the current aesthetic standard of a thin and toned
physique for females (i.e., low percent body fat and physically fit) and a lean and
muscular physique for males (i.e., low percent body fat and muscular, especially
upper body muscularity) is omnipresent and virtually impossible for people to
achieve without excessive dieting, exercise, or both (Cusumano & Thompson,
1997; Thompson et al., 1999).
Disparities in body image disturbance exist among population groups. For ex-
ample, the prevalence of body image disturbance is higher am ong females than
males (Garner, 1997), younger compared to older individuals (APA, 1994), among
Caucasians than ethnic minorities (Altabe, 1998; Smith, Thompson, Raczynski, &
Hilner, 1999), among the more affluent than the lower affluent (Allaz et al., 1998;
APA, 1994), and among people with a greater percent body fat than those with a
lower percent body fat (Focht & Hausenblas, 2000).
Another population suggested by some researchers to be at-risk for body image
disturbance are athletes because of task (e.g., performance advantages, weight
requirements) and social (e.g., coach, judge, teammates) pressures to attain an
ideal physique (Davis & Cowles, 1989; Rao & Overman, 1986). In contrast, other
researchers have found that athletes report lower or similar body im age concerns
compared to nonathletes (Anderson, Zager, Hetzler, Nahikian- Nelms, & Syler,
1996; Fulkerson, Keel, Leon, & Dorr, 1999; Hausenblas & Mack, 1999). In short,
research examining body image disturbance between athletes and nonathletes is
equivocal and no comprehensive synthesis of the literature has been located.
If athletes have a m ore positive body image compared to nonathletes then ex-
amining the mediating and moderating effects for this relationship may aid in the
development of body image interventions for nonathletes. In contrast, if athletes
report greater body image disturbance compared to nonathletes then investigating
the so ciocultural influ ences within the athle te’s envir onment which may be
perpeturating this problem must be addressed due to the serious adverse outcomes
of body image concerns such as negative behaviors (e.g., excessive dieting and
exercising, purging), attitudes (e.g., lower self-esteem , increased depression), and
cognitions (e.g., distorted thought processes).
There are several methodological reasons which may, in part, have resulted in
the equivocal literature on body image between athletes compared to nonathletes.
It is important to emphasize that these methodological issues are not limited to the
sport research but are evident in the general body image literature (T hompson et
al., 1999). First, the operational definition and terminology of body image has
varied and has often not been explicitly explained (Bane & McAuley, 1998). For

325BODY IMAGE, ATHLETES
example, constructs assessed under the rubric of body image include body size
perception, appearance evaluation, physique anxiety, and avoidant behaviors re-
lated to appearance (Thompson et al., 1999). Due to the casual use of the term,
caution must be taken when comparing studies that claim to assess body image
because, for example, one study may examine perceptions of appearance whereas
the other m ay assess attitudes about appearance.
Thompson et al. (1999) clarified that body image disturbance is an umbrella
term which is conceptualized as encompassing perceptions, cognitions, affect,
behaviors, and subjective evaluations related to body image. The affective compo-
nent consists of distress or anxiety regarding one’s appearance (e.g., social phy-
sique anxiety). The cognitive component includes how body image schema af-
fects the input, storage, and retrieval processing of the mental encyclopedia. For
example, body-related thoughts dominate the cognitions of individuals with se-
vere body image disturbance. The behavioral aspect includes avoidance of situa-
tions or environments that are perceived to elicit body image scrutiny (e.g., swim-
ming at a public beach) or engaging in behaviors related to weight change/m ainte-
nance (e.g., dieting, exercising). The perceptual component is defined as the accu-
racy of estimation of the size of body sites. Finally, subjective evaluation is con-
ceptualized as the most global measure because it captures the essence of a person’s
subjective evaluation and may be associated with affective, cognitive, and behav-
ioral features of body image (Thompson et al., 1999). For example, the degree that
one is dissatisfied with the size/shape of specific body parts or the whole body
represents the subjective evaluation of body image disturbance. As Thompson et
al. (1999) states, the body image disturbance term is “almost useless without a
specification of which particular subjective, affective, cognitive, behavioral, or
perceptual processes are intended and whether the foci are specific body sites or a
more global aspect of overall appearance” (p. 10).
Second, there are numerous body image measures which vary depending on
which aspect of body image disturbance is being assessed. These instruments dif-
fer substantially in regards to their psychometric properties, feasibility, and fre-
quency of use (Bane & McAuley, 1998). The subjective evaluation domain of
body image contains the m ost assessm ent tools. These measures assess, for ex-
ample, body image satisfaction, esteem, appearance, and evaluation. The inter-
ested reader is referred to Bane and McAuley (1998) and Thompson et al. (1999)
for a review of body image measures.
Third, failure to examine the moderating effects of competitive level (e.g., high
school, college, elite), age, body composition, sport type (e.g., basketball, gym-
nastics), and ethnicity may have led to conflicting findings in the body image and
athlete literature (Brownell & Rodin, 1992). As previously mentioned, body im-
age disturbance is negatively related to age, positively associated to body compo-
sition, and Caucasians report more disturbance than minorities. Research examin-
ing the moderating effects of competitive level and sport type on the body image
of athletes, however, has been mixed (Brownell & Rodin, 1992).
In summary, due to the large number of studies which have examined body
image between athletes and nonathletes, the methodological study limitations, the

326 HAUSENBLAS AND SYMONS DOWNS
serious negative effects of body image disturbance, and the variability of the find-
ings, a quantitative synthesis of this literature is necessary. The primary purpose
of the present study was to meta-analytically review the research on body image
between athlete and nonathletes. It was hypothesized that the athletes would re-
port less body image disturbance than the nonathletes. This was based on the fact
that athletes because of their high levels of physical activity may be more likely to
experience the positive physical (e.g., lean, toned, and muscular physique) and
psychological (e.g., increased self-esteem, decreased depression) benefits of physi-
cal activity than the control groups (Fox, 2000; Landers & Arent, 2001).
The secondary purpose was to examine the influence of the potential moderat-
ing variables of age, sport type, gender, body composition, publication status, com-
petitive level, and ethnicity on body image between athletes and nonathletes. It
was hypothesized that there would be a: (a) negative relationship between body
image disturbance and age, (b) positive relationship between body image distur-
bance and body composition, (c) larger effect for published than unpublished re-
search, and (d) larger negative effect for Caucasians compared to minorities. Due
to the discrepant literature on the relationship between sport type and competitive
level for athletes’ body image no a priori hypothesis were advanced.
METHOD
Literature Search
Three methods were undertaken to conduct the literature search. First, the key
words of body image, body dissatisfaction/satisfaction, body esteem, athlete, sport,
and body image disturbance were used for computer searches in Dissertation Ab-
stracts Online, Educational Resources in Completion, Medline, Psychinfo, and
Sportdiscus. Second, the reference list of review articles and all located studies
were searched. Third, published conference abstracts in the following journals
were examined: Journal of Sport & Exercise P sychology (1994–2000), Medicine
and Science in Sports and Exercise (1986–2000), Research Quarterly for Exer-
cise and Sport (1992–2000), and Journal of Applied Sport Psychology (1994–
1995).
The scrutiny of approximately 300 sources yielded 78 studies containing 13,037
athletes with 294 effect sizes that met the following inclusion criteria: (a) the study
participants included male athletes, fem ale athletes, or both (athlete was opera-
tionally defined as individuals participating in structured competitive physical
activity that is governed by rules; Fox, Boutcher, Faulkner, & Biddle, 2000); (b)
the study had a comparison group of individuals not involved in competitive sport
or normative data was available; (c) the dependent variable was a body image
measure; and (d) there was sufficient information to compute an effect size. Cal-
culating an effect size required one of the following: (a) mean, standard deviation,
and sample size for the athlete and comparison groups; (b) the critical value from
a statistical test (i.e., t or F) and the size of the athlete and comparison groups; (c)
the significance level and the size of the athlete and comparison groups; or (d) the
percentage of individuals in the athlete and comparison groups with body image
disturbance (Rosenthal, 1994).

327BODY IMAGE, ATHLETES
Coding the Studies
The two authors coded each study independently then compared responses and
discussed coding difference to achieve consensus. No instances of irreconcilable
differences were encountered.
Participant characteristics. The participant characteristics coded included age,
gender, body composition (e.g., body mass index [BMI], percent body fat), com-
petitive level (e.g., high school, college, elite), ethnicity, and sport type. Over 55
different sports were examined, making it impossible to statistically analyze the
moderating effect of sport type separately. Thus, sports were sorted into the fol-
lowing five categories based on their similar sport-specific demands: (a) aesthetic
(e.g., figure skating, diving); endurance (e.g., running, triathlon); ball game (e.g.,
soccer, basketball); weight-dependent (e.g., wrestling); and power (e.g., sprinting;
Sundgot-Borgen & Larsen, 1993). The comparison groups coded were: (a) female
athletes versus female controls, (b) male athletes versus m ale controls, and (c)
combined male and female athletes versus combined male and female controls.
Study characteristics. The study characteristics coded were publication status
(i.e., published versus unpublished), control group (i.e., control group from the
study versus control group based on available normative data), response rate, pub-
lication year, study design, and country of origin.
Body image measures. Over 25 different body image tests were used in the
studies reviewed. Each test was coded separately. Because of the large number of
body im age measures and their infrequent use, studies were further coded as to
which body image category was assessed.1 Based on the organizational schema of
Thompson et al. (1999), the body image measures were categorized as either per-
ceptual, cognitive, affective, behavioral, or subjective evaluation.
Calculation of Effect Sizes
The statistical methods used to compute effect sizes are those outlined by Hedges
(1981, 1982) and Hedges and Olkin (1985). Because effect sizes are positively
biased in small samples, a correction factor was used on each effect size prior to
subsequent analysis. This correction ensured that the mean effect size did not sta-
tistically overestimate the effect. Thus, each effect size was weighted by the recip-
rocal of its variance prior to combining the effect size. Therefore, an overall
weighted mean estimate and an estimate of the variance of the effect size was
obtained. A negative effect size indicates that the athletic group had a more posi-
tive body image than the control group.
Statistical Analysis
First, all effect sizes were calculated to determine the overall average effect. As
a consequence, some studies had multiple-treatments (i.e., common control groups)
1 The individual body image tests and categories are available from the first author upon
request.

328 HAUSENBLAS AND SYMONS DOWNS
or multiple-endpoints (i.e., multiple measures; Gleser & Olkin, 1994). Because
multiple-treatments do not bias the mean effect size calculated (it will cause an
overestimation of the corrected standard deviation, but this bias is not large), no
adjustments were undertaken. Because multiple-endpoints violate the assumption
of independent data points (Bangert-Drowns, 1986), each study was limited to
one set of effect sizes per comparison group per body image category. Removal of
effect sizes were conducted in studies with two or more measures of the same
body image category per comparison. The removal order was first author-devel-
oped questionnaires and then standardized questionnaires. Finally, in studies with
two or more effect sizes remaining, random removal was conducted until one
effect remained per comparison per assessment modality. This procedure ensured
that the assumption of independence of effects was achieved. To examine the
influence of the moderator variables on the size of the effect one-way analyses of
variance (ANOVA) with the effect size values as the dependent variable were
conducted where sufficient data was available (Thomas & French, 1986). Finally,
a z statistic was used to determine if the effect size was equal to zero (p < .05,
Cooper & Hedges, 1994).
RESULTS
Study, Participant, and Body Image Characteristics
The median year of publication was 1994 (range = 1975 to 2000). The majority
of the studies were undertaken in the United States (65.9%), followed by Canada
(18.3%), Norway (4.9%), England (2.4%), Germany (2.4%), and Italy (2.4%).
The response rate was reported in 26.9% (n = 21) of the studies. W ithin these
studies the average response rate was 80.5% (range = 9% to 100%). Because only
26.9% (n = 21) of the studies indicated the participants’ ethnicity examination of
the moderating effect of this variable was not feasible. In regards to gender, 64.1%
(n = 50) of the studies examined female athletes, 19.2% (n = 15) assessed male
athletes, and 16.7% (n = 13) examined both sexes. The majority of the studies
(94.8%, n = 74) were correlational, followed by intervention (n = 2), quasi-experi-
mental (n = 1), and longitudinal studies (n = 1).
Most of the body image measures were categorized in the subjective evaluation
domain (96.9%), followed by perceptual (1.7%), and affective (1.3%). No mea-
sures were used that assessed the behavioral or cognitive domain. Thus, the main
analyses were restricted to studies that used subjective evaluation measures. The
majority of the effect sizes were obtained from the Body Dissatisfaction Subscale
of the Eating Disorder Inventory-2 (56.8%; Garner, 1991; Garner & Olmsted,
1983) followed by the Body Cathexis Scale (4.2%; Secord & Jourard, 1953). Most
of the studies assessed BMI (50%, n = 39), followed by 48.7% (n = 38) that did not
examine body composition, and 17.9% (n = 14) that measured percent body fat
(e.g., skin folds, bioelectrical impedance, dual x-ray absorptometry).2 F inally, for
2 Percentages exceed 100 because some studies used more than one method.

329BODY IMAGE, ATHLETES
competitive level, the majority of athletes were competing at the college level
(38.5%, n = 30), followed by elite (24.4% , n = 19), adolescent /high school (14.1%,
n = 11), club/recreational (10.3%, n = 8), combination of levels (10.3%, n = 8),
and unknown (2.5%, n = 2). For comparison group, the majority were students
(33.3%, n = 26), followed by nonathletes (29.5%, n = 23), normative data (24.4%,
n = 19), low/nonexercisers (7.6%, n = 6), sedentary (2.6%, n = 2), and aged-
matched (n = 2, 2.6%).
General Analysis
The distribution of effect sizes was homogeneous, c2(293) = 75.27, ns (Hedges
& Olkin, 1985). Nonetheless, the impact of potential moderators were examined
because contrasts should be computed among the effect sizes irrespective of whether
the homogeneity test is significant (Rosenthal, 1995). The overall effect size was
–.27 (SD = .25, n = 294, p < .05) which revealed that the: (a) athletes had a more
positive body image compared to the control groups, (b) magnitude of the effect
was significantly different from zero, and (c) size of the effect was small (see
Table 1). The assumption of independent effects was undertaken for the subjec-
tive evaluation category only, because the affective and perceptual categories did
not contain enough data to warrant further analysis. T his resulted in the retention
of 190 effect sizes producing a small effect size of –.35 (SD = .27, p < .05). Be-
cause the distribution of the effect sizes was normal parametric statistics were
adopted to examine the potential moderator variables.
Moderator Variables
One-way ANOVAs were conducted to determine if participant characteristics,
study characteristics, and body image measures moderated the effect size (see
Table 1). First, the effect size for the unpublished research (i.e., dissertations/the-
ses; ES = –.45) was significantly larger compared to the published research (ES =
–.29). Second, the effect size where the comparison group was from the study (ES
= –.28) was significantly smaller than in studies where the comparison group was
based on normative data (ES = –.48). Third, there was no significant difference
between the magnitude of the effect size for the female athletes versus the fem ale
nonathletes (ES = –.36) compared to the male athletes versus the male nonathletes
(ES = –.31).
Fourth, an examination by sport type was undertaken to examine whether sub-
groups of athletes had better body image than their counterparts. The athletes were
sorted into aesthetic, endurance, and ball game sports (i.e., there were insufficient
data for the other sport categories and they were, thus, excluded from the analy-
ses). It was found that the average effect size did not differ significantly among the
aesthetic (ES = –.23), endurance (ES = –.43), and ball game (ES = –.40) athletes.
It should be noted that the effect size for all three sport categories was signifi-
cantly different from zero, indicating that the aesthetic, endurance, and ball game
athlete groups had a more positive body image compared to the control groups.
Fifth, an examination of the effect size across competitive levels (i.e., college,

330 HAUSENBLAS AND SYMONS DOWNS
elite, adolescent/high school, and club/recreational) yielded a significant differ-
ence. The results of the post hoc analyses showed that the effect size for the col-
lege athletes (ES = –.41) was significantly larger than the effect size for the club/
recreational athletes (ES = –.13). That is, compared to the control group the col-
lege athletes had significantly more positive body image than the club/recreational
athletes. There were no other significant competitive level group differences.
Sixth, the magnitude of the effect size among individuals aged < 18 (ES =
–.22), 18 to 22 (ES = –.39), and > 22 (ES = –.29) was nonsignificant. The magni-
Table 1
Summary of the Effect Sizes, Standard Deviations (SD), F Values,
Significance Levels, and Number of Effect Sizes (N)
Variable Effect Size SD Effect Size N
Overall –.27 .26 294
Independent effects –.35 .27 190
Publication format F (1, 188) = 6.37, p = .01
Published –.29a.27 12 4
Unpublished –.44b.27 6 6
Comparison group F (1, 188) = 10.10, p = .002
From study –.28a.26 127
Normative data –.48b.29 6 3
Gender differenc es F (1, 181) = .42 , p = .51
Female athletes –. 36 .27 14 1
Male athletes –.31 .31 42
Sport type F (2, 127) = 2.67, p = .07
Aes thetic –.23 .30 45
Endurance –.43 .30 37
Ball Game –.40 .31 48
Level F (3, 169) = 2.61, p < .05
Elite –.30 .20 2 3
College –.41a.29 8 9
Adolescent/high school –.38 .22 42
Club/recre ational –.13b.43 19
Age F (2, 102) = 2.89, p = .06
< 18 –.22 .31 3 8
18 to 22 –.39 .23 46
> 22 –.29 .26 2 1
Body Mass Index F (2, 84) = 1.56, p = .21
< 20 –.32 .27 1 4
20 to 22 –.42 .22 42
> 22 –.25 .25 3 1
Note. Supers cripts that are d ifferent rep resent effects wh ich are significantly di fferent. All the
effect sizes we re significantly different from zero.

331BODY IMAGE, ATHLETES
tude of the effect size among individuals with a BMI < 20, 20 to 22, and > 22 was
nonsignificant. Due to the low number of studies that reported the participants’
percent body fat the moderating effect of this variable was not examined. Finally,
the effect size for the Body Dissatisfaction subscale of the Eating Disorder Inven-
tory (ES = –.35, SD = .29, n = 154) did not differ significantly from the other
subjective evaluation measures (ES = –.37, SD = .42, n = 36).
DISCUSSION
Due to the inconsistency in the research examining body image between ath-
letes and nonathletes and the serious negative effects of body image disturbance, a
meta-analytic review of this literature was undertaken. This statistical review of
78 studies containing 294 effect sizes yielded a num ber of findings. The general
result was that the athletes reported a more positive body image than the control
groups, and the magnitude of this effect was small. This result may be due to the
possibility that athletes, because of their high physical activity levels, may more
closely resemble the current aesthetic ideal of a thin/lean and fit physique for fe-
males and a lean and muscular physique for males than the nonathletes (Brownell,
1991). This finding may also be due to the fact that physical activity participation
is associated with increases in positive psychological characteristics (e.g., increased
self-esteem, decreased m ood disturbance) that are related to positive body image
(Fox, 2000; Landers & Arent, 2001). The question of whether individuals with a
positive body im age choose to participate in sport or that they develop favorable
images through athletic engagement is an area of further inquiry. T his could po-
tentially be investigated using longitudinal research designs that track athletes over
the course of several years.
Several possible moderating effects of the results were examined. First, in con-
trast to the hypothesis BMI did not moderate the effect size. Possible reasons for
this finding may be that the majority of BMI scores (i.e., 73.9%) were within a
healthy range of 20 to 25; Jequier, 1987). Also, BMI has a high predictive error,
especially with physically active populations (ACSM, 1995). Thus, it is conceiv-
able for athletes to have a mesomorphic body type, which may result in higher
BMI, despite the fact that they have low percent body fat. Due to the lim ited num-
ber of studies that assessed body com position future researchers are encouraged to
examine the moderating effects of body image in athletes with more accurate as-
sessments of body composition such as hydrostatic weighing, bod pod, and dual
energy x-ray aborptiometry. Also, in contrast to the prediction, age failed to mod-
erate the size of the effect. That is, irrespective of age, athletes reported a more
positive body image than nonathletes.
Second, both the published and unpublished research yielded average effect
sizes that indicated that the athletes had a more positive body image than the con-
trol groups. However, in contrast to the hypothesis, the effect size for the pub-
lished research was small versus moderate for the unpublished literature. Thus,
the source/location of the research findings was relevant because a stronger effect
was present in unpublished (i.e., thesis/dissertation) versus published formats.

332 HAUSENBLAS AND SYMONS DOWNS
Third, a small effect was found for studies in which individuals representing
the “population in general” were included for comparison purposes versus a mod-
erate effect size for studies where normative data were used. Thus, reliance on
normative data, as opposed to a more representative control group, may result in
biassed results. Caution is warranted when interpreting results that are based on
normative data when examining body image disturbance between athletes and
nonathletes. Furthermore, there was variability in the control groups ranging from
nonexercisers, to nonathletes, to sedentary controls, to students, for example. It is
plausible that some controls may have been former athletes/exercisers. Future re-
searchers are encouraged to clearly define their control groups and assess for past
sport/exercise participation and current physical activity behaviors.
Fourth, athletes competing in endurance, aesthetic, and ball game sports did
not differ in the magnitude of the effect for body image concerns compared to the
control groups. Thus, sport-type failed to moderate body image concerns despite
the fact that some researchers have stated that athletes in aesthetic and endurance
sports are more likely to be under onerous pressure to achieve the ideal body
shape compared to their counterparts (Davis & Cowles, 1989; Sundgot- Borgen &
Larsen, 1993). Due to the small number of studies examining athletes in weight-
dependent and power sports, no effect size computations were undertaken. Thus,
future researchers are encouraged to examine body image concerns for athletes
competing in these aforementioned sports.
Finally, in comparison with the general population, college athletes had a more
positive body image than club/recreational athletes. It is plausible that athletes
competing at the club/recreational level may be engaging in less physical activity
compared to athletes competing at higher levels and, thus, may not be as lean.
Future research is warranted to examine the role that physical activity executes for
body image concerns (Bane & McAuley, 1998).
The study findings have also highlighted additional areas of future research
consideration when examining body image in athletes. First, it is important to note
that only 19.2% of the comparisons involved male athletes. Future research is
needed to examine body image concerns with male athletes, especially due to the
increasing rise of body image disturbance in this population (Garner, 1997; Pope
et al., 2000). Second, most of the studies assessed the subjective evaluation of
body image, in particular with the Body Dissatisfaction S ubscale of Eating Disor-
der Inventory-2. The Body Dissatisfaction Subscale measures the preoccupation
with the size and shape of certain body parts such as the hips, buttocks, and thighs.
This is a narrow conceptualization of body dissatisfaction and it fails to capture
areas such as the upper body that tend to be more of a concern for males. It is
recommended that body image be viewed and measured as a multidimensional
construct and that the dimensions of body image assessed are clearly defined (see
Bane & McAuley, 1998; Thompson et al., 1999). Furthermore, the awareness as
well as the internalization of social standards of appearance are needed to exam-
ine their influence on body image. Recently researchers found that the internaliza-
tion of societal body image ideals account for significant levels of body image
disturbance beyond that explained by awareness (Cusumano & Thompson, 1997).

333BODY IMAGE, ATHLETES
Third, the state versus trait dimensions of body image have not been exam-
ined in the sport area. For example, do athletes experience body image concerns
immediately prior to, during, or following competition and does this have an ef-
fect on their performance? Fourth, few studies reported on ethnicity and examined
ethnic differences in body image. Body image concerns are influenced by cultural
and ethnic factors. For examples, studies have found that ethnic minorities have
lower body image dissatisfaction than Caucasians (Lake, Staiger, & Glowinski,
2000; Smith et al., 1999). This is an area in need of future research in the athlete
literature.
In conclusion, based on the results of the meta-analytic review athletes reported
a more positive body image than the control groups. Because body image distur-
bance represents a “normative discontent” in North America (Garner, 1997), ex-
amining why athletes have a more positive body image than nonathletes may aid
in interventions designed to reduce body image disturbance in the general popula-
tion. Future research is required to examine the mechanisms which lead to a more
positive body image in athletes compared to nonathletes.
REFERENCES
*Abood, D. A., & Black, D. R. (2000). Health education prevention for eating disorders
among college female athletes. American Journal of Health B ehavior, 24, 209–219.
Allaz, A., Bernstein, M., Rouget, P., Archinard, M., & Morabia, A. (1998). Body weight
preoccupation in middle-age and ageing women: A general population survey. Inter-
national Journal of Eating Disorders, 23, 287–294.
Altabe, M. (1998). Ethnicity and body image: Quantitative and qualitative analysis. Inter-
national Journal of Eating Disorders, 23, 153–160.
American College of Sports Medicine. (1995). ACSM’s guidelines for exerci se testing and
prescription (5th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
*Anderson, S. L., Zager, K., Hetzler, R. K., Nahikian-Nelms, M., & Syler, G. (1996). Com-
parison of Eating Disorder Inventory-2 (EDI-2) scores of male bodybuilders to the
male college student subgroup. International Journal of Sport Nutrition, 6, 255–262.
*Asci, F. H., Goekmen, H., Tiryaki, G., & Asci, A. (1997). Self-concept and body image of
Turkish high school male athletes and nonathletes. Adolescence, 32, 959–968.
*Ashley, C. D., Smith, J. F., Robinson, J. B., & Richardson, M. T. (1996). Disordered
eating in females in an advanced program of study: A preliminary investigation. Inte r-
national Journal of Sport Nutrition, 6, 391–401.
*Baker, P. (1994). Eating attitudes and behaviors of high performance female adolescent
athletes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada.
Bane, S., & McAuley, E. (1998). Body image and exercise. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances
in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 311–324). Morgantown, WV:
Fitness Information Technology.
* Studies included in the meta-analysis.
** Studies included in the meta-analysis that utilized the same sample.

334 HAUSENBLAS AND SYMONS DOWNS
Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1986). Review of developments in meta-analytic method. Psycho-
logical Bul letin, 99, 388–399.
*Beals, K. A. (1996). Subclinical eating disorders in female athletes. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.
*Benson, J. E., Allemann, Y., Theintz, G. E., & Howald, H. (1990). Eating problems and
calorie intack levels in Swiss adolescent athletes. International Journal of Sports Medi-
cine, 11, 249–252.
Berscheid, E., Walster, E., & Bohrnstedt, G. (1973). The happy American body: A survey
report. Psychology Today, 7, 119–131.
*Bettle, N., Bettle, O., Neumarker, U., & Neumarker, K. (1998). Adolescent ballet school
students: Their quest for body weight change. Psychopathology, 31, 153–159.
*Bock, B. C. (1994). Athletics, eating disturbance and body dissatisfaction: The relation-
ship of psycho logical investment in fitness to eating and body shape concerns in ad o-
lescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tufts University, Boston.
*Bonaparte, E. (1990). The relation ship between running and object relatedness, narcis-
sism, and body image. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Adelphi University.
*Brooks-Gunn, J., Attie, I., Burrow, C., Rosso, J. T., & Warren, M. P. (1989, Study 2). The
impact of puberty on body and eating concerns in athletic and nonathletic contexts.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 9, 269–290.
Brownell, K. D. (1991). Dieting and the search for the perfect body: Where physiology and
culture collide. Behavior Therapy, 22, 1–12.
Brownell, K. D., & Rodin, J. (1992). Prevalence of eating disorders in athletes. In K. D.
Brownell, J. Rodin, & J. H. Wilmore (Eds.), Eating, body weight and performance in
athletes (pp. 128–145). Malvern, PA: Lea & Febiger.
*Broxon, K. A. (1993). The effect of high intensity anaerobic training and caloric restric-
tion on menst rual function in elite and recreational female rock climbers. Unpub-
lished master’s thesis, California State University, Fullerton.
*Campbell, J. (1985, July/August). Anorexia nervosa: Body dissatisfaction in a high risk
population. CAHPER Journal, 36–42.
Cash, T. F., & Henry, P. E. (1995). Women’s body images: The results of a national survey
in the U.S.A. Sex Roles, 33, 19–28.
*Chopak, J. S., & Taylor-Nicholson, M. (1991). Do female college athletes develop eating
disorders as a result of the athletic environment? In D. H. Black (Ed.), Eating disor-
ders among athletes: Theory, issues, and research (pp. 87–95). Reston, VA: Ameri-
can Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.
*Ciervo, R. L. (1998). Relationship between family environment and eating disorders among
female student-athletes. Upublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Phila-
delphia.
*Collison, S. B., Kuczmarksi, M. F., & Vickery, C. E. (1996). Impact of nutrition educa-
tion on female athletes. American Journal of Health Behavior, 20, 14–23.
Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
*Cox, L. M., Lantz, C. D., & Mayhew, J. L. (1997). The role of social physique anxiety and
other variables in predicting eating behaviors in college students. International Jour-
nal o f Spo rt Nutrition , 7, 310–317.
Cusumano, D. L., & Thompson, J. K. (1997). Body image and body shape ideals in maga-
zines: Exposure, awareness, and internalization. Sex Roles, 37, 701–721.
*Dale, K. S., & Landers, D. M. (1999). Weight control in wrestling: Eating disorders or
disordered eating? Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 31, 1382–1389.

335BODY IMAGE, ATHLETES
*Davis, C. (1992). Body image, dieting behaviors, and personality factors: A study of
high-performance female athletes. International Journa l of Sport Psychology, 23, 179–
192.
*Davis, C., & Cowles, M. (1989). A comparison of weight and diet concerns and personal-
ity factors among female athletes and non-athletes. Journal of Psychosoma tic Research,
33, 527–536.
*DiNucci, J. M., Finkenberg, M. E., McCune, S. L., McCune, E. D., & Mayo, T. (1994).
Analysis of body esteem of female collegiate athletes. Percept ual and Motor Skills,
78, 315–319.
*Finkenberg, M. E., DiNucci, J. M., McCune, S. L., Chenette, T., & McCoy, P. (1998).
Commitment to physical activity and anxiety about physique among college women.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87, 1393–1394.
Focht, B., & Hausenblas, H. A. (2001). Influence of acute aerobic exercise performed in the
naturalistic environment and quiet rest on selected psychological responses. Journal
of Sp ort & Exercise Psycholog y.
Fox, K. R. (2000). The effects of exercise on self-perceptions and self-esteem. In S. J. H.
Biddle, K. R. Fox, & S. H. Boutcher (Eds.), Physical activity, mental health, and
psychological well-being. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Fox, K. R., Boutcher, S. H., Faulkner, G. E., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2000). The case for exer-
cise in the promotion of mental health and psychological well-being. In S. J. H. Biddle,
K. R. Fox, & S. H. Boutcher (Eds.), Physi cal activity and psychological well-being
(pp. 1–9). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
*Franseen, L. M. (1996). Environmental pressures, personality fac tors and their relation-
ship to e ating disorder s in elite female athletes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Montana, Missoula.
*Fulkerson, J. A., Keel, P. K., Leon, G. R., & Dorr, T. (1999). Eating-disordered behaviors
and personality characteristics of high school athletes and nonathletes. International
Journal of Eating Disorders, 26, 73–79.
*Furst, D. M., & Tenenbaum, G. (1984). A correlation of body-cathexis and anxiety in
athletes and nonathletes. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 15, 160–168.
*Garbe, K. C. (1990). Potent ial for osteoporosi s in selected dancers. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Texas Woman’s University, D enton.
Garner, D. M. (1991). Eating Disorder Inventory-2 manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Garner, D. M. (1997, January/February). The body image survey. Psychology Today, 32–
84.
*Garner, D. M., Garfinkel, P. E., Rockert, W., & Olmsted, M. P. (1987). A prospective
study of eating disturbances in the ballet. Journal of Psychotherapy and Psychoso-
matics, 48, 170–175.
Garner, D. M ., & Olmsted, M. P. (1984). The Eating Disorder Inventory manual. Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Gleser, L. J., & Olkin, I. (1994). Stochastically dependent effect sizes. In H. Cooper, & L.
V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 339–357). New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
**Guthrie, S. R. (1985). The prevalence and development of eating disorders within a
selected intercollegiate athletic population. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio
State University, Columbus.
**Guthrie, S. R. (1991). Prevalence of eating disorders among intercollegiate athletes:
Contributing factors and preventative measures. In D. H. Black (Ed.), Eating disor-

336 HAUSENBLAS AND SYMONS DOWNS
ders among athletes: Theory, issues, and research (pp. 43–65). Reston, VA: Ameri-
can Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance.
*Guthrie, S. R., Ferguson, C., & Grimmett, D. (1994). Elite women bodybuilders: Ironing
out nutritional misconceptions. The Sport Psy chologist, 8, 271–286.
*Hallinan, C. J., Pierce, E. F., Evans, J. E., DeGrenier, J. D., & Andres, F. F. (1991).
Perceptions of current and ideal body shape of athletes and nonathletes. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 72, 123–130.
*Harris, M. B., & Greco, D. (1990). Weight control and weight concern in competitive
female gymnasts. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 12, 427–433.
*Hausenblas, H. A. (1998). Eating disorders and athletes (Study 1). Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
*Hausenblas, H. A., & Mack, D. E. (1999). Social physique anxiety and eating disorder
correlates among female athletic and nonathletic populations. Journal of Sport Behav-
ior, 22, 502–513.
Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related
estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107–128.
Hedges, L. V. (1982). Fitting categorical models to effect sizes from a series of experi-
ments. Journal of Educational Statistics, 7, 119–137.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York: Aca-
demic Press.
*Ho, L., & Walker, J. E. (1981). Female athletes and nonathletes: Similarities and differ-
ences in self perception. Journal of Sport Behavior, 5, 12–27.
*Huddy, D. C., & Cash, T. F. (1997). Body-image attitudes among male marathon runners: A
controlled comparative study. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28, 227–236.
*Huddy, D. C., Nieman, D. C., & Johnson, R. L. (1993). Relationship between body image
and percent body fat among college male varsity athletes and nonathletes. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 77, 851–857.
*Jackman, L. P., Williamson, D. A., Netemeyer, R. G., & Anderson, D. A. (1995). Do
weight-preoccupied women misinterpret ambiguous stimuli related to body size? Cog-
nitive Thera py and Research, 19, 341–355.
Jequier, E. (1987). Energy, obesity, and body weight standards. American Journal of Clini-
cal Nutrition, 45, 1035–1047.
*Joesting, J., & Clance, P. R. (1979). Comparison of runners and nonrunners on the body-
cathexis and self-cathexis scales. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 48, 1046.
*Klock, S. C., & DeSouza, M. J. (1995). Eating disorder characteristics and psychiatric
symptomatology of eumenorrheic and amenorrheic runners. International Journal of
Eating Dis orders, 17, 161–166.
**Kurtzman, F. D., Yager, J., Landsverk, J., Wiesmeier, E., & Bodurka, D. C. (1989).
Eating disorders among selected female student populations at UCLA. Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, 89, 45–53.
**Kurtzman, F. D., Yager, J., Landsverk, J., Wiesmeier, E., & Bodurka, D. C. (1990).
Eating disorders and associated symptoms among dancers and other student popula-
tions at UCLA. Kineisology and Medicine for Dance, 13, 16–32.
Lake, A. J., Staiger, P. K., & Glowinski, H. (2000). Effect of western culture on women’s
attitudes to eating and perceptions of body shape. International Journal of Eating
Disorders, 27, 83–89.
Landers, D. M., & Arent, S. M. (2001). Physical activity and mental health. In R. N. Singer,
H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology
(pp. 740–765). New York: John W iley & Sons.

337BODY IMAGE, ATHLETES
*Lemmon, C. R. (1991). A study of athletics as a risk factor for the eating disorders.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Mississippi, Oxford.
*Lenart, E. B., Goldberg, J. P., Bailey, S. M., Sallal, G. E., & Koff, E. A. (1995). Current
and ideal physique choices in exercising and nonexercising college women from a
pilot athletic image scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 81, 831–848.
*Loosemore, D. J., Mable, H. M., Galgan, R. J., Balance, W. D. G., & Moriarty, R. J.
(1989). Body image disturbance in selected groups of men. Psychology, A Journal of
Human Behavior, 26, 56–59.
*Marsh, H. W., Hey, J., Roche, L. A., & Perry, C. (1997). Structure of physical self-con-
cept: Elite athletes and physical education students. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 89, 369–380.
*Marshall, J. D., & Harber, V. J. (1996). Body dissatisfaction and drive for thinness in high
performance field hockey athletes. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 17, 541–
544.
*Mason, M. A. (1997). An educational inter vention for the prevention of eating disorders
in college fem ale athletes: A risk factor approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Maude, D., Wertheim, E. H., Paxton, S., Gibbons, K., & Szmukler, G. (1993). Body dissatisfac-
tion, weight loss behaviours, and bulimic tendencies in Australian adolescents with an
estimate of female data representativeness. Australian Psychologist, 28, 128–132.
*Miller, J. L., & Levy, G. D. (1996). Gender role conflict, gender-typed characteristics,
self-concepts, and sport socialization in female athletes and nonathletes. Sex Roles: A
Journal of Research, 35, 111–122.
*Nudelman, S., Rosen, J. C., & Leitenberg, H. (1988). Dissimilarities in eating attitudes,
body image distortion, depression, and self-esteem between high intensity male run-
ners. International Journal of Eating Disorders,7, 625–634.
*O’Connor, P. J., Lewis, R. D., & Kirchner, E. M. (1995). Eating disorder symptoms in
female college gymnasts. Medicine and Science in Sport s and Exercise, 27, 550–555.
*O’Neil, M. S. (1990). Body image distortion, athletic participation, and steroid use by
high schoo l students in Southwestern Ontario. Unpublished master’s thesis, Univer-
sity of Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
*Parker, R. M., Lambert, M. J., & Burlingame, G. M. (1994). Psychological features of
female runners presenting with pathological weight control behaviors. Journa l of Sport
& Ex ercise Psycho logy, 16, 119–134.
*Petrie, T. A. (1996). Differences between male and female college lean sport athletes,
non-lean sport athletes, and nonathletes on behavioral and psychological indices of
eating disorders. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 8, 218–230.
Pope, H. G., Gruber, A. J., Mangweth, B., Beauea, B., deCol, C., Jouvent, R., & Hudson, J.
I. (2000). Body image perception among men in three countries. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 157, 1297–1301.
*Puddu, C. (1997). The relation ship between stress and eating attitu des and behaviour in
female dan cers and field hockey players. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of
Alberta, Edm onton, Alberta, Canada.
*Puddu, C., Geithner, C. A., & Bracko, M. R. (1999). Prevalence of disordered eating
tendencies in young female ice hockey players. Medicine and Scie nce in Sports and
Exercise, 31, S215.
*Rainey, C. J., McKeown, R. E., Sargent, R. G., & Valois, R. F. (1998). Adolescent
athleticism, exercise, body image, and dietary practices. American Journal of Health
Behavior, 22, 193–205.

338 HAUSENBLAS AND SYMONS DOWNS
*Rao, V. V. P., & Overman, S. J. (1986). Psychological well-being and body image: A
comparison of black women athletes and nonathletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 9,
79–91.
**Reel, J. J. (1995). An examination of psychological characteristics related to eating
attitudes and behaviors of college and high school female cheerleaders. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, Greensboro.
**Reel, J. J., & Gill, D. L. (1996). Psychosocial factors related to eating disorders among
high school and college female cheerleaders. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 195–206.
*Rhea, D. J. (1993). The perspectives of coaches and high school female athletes on eating
disorders. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Houston, Houston.
**Rhea, D. J. (1995). Risk factors for the developm ent of eating disorders in ethnically
diverse high school athlete and non-athlete urban populations. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Houston, Houston.
**Rhea, D. J. (1999). Eating disorder behaviors of ethnically diverse urban female adoles-
cent athletes and non-athletes. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 379–388.
*Robertson, K., Mellor, S., Hughes, M., & Sanderson, F. (1988). Psychological health and
squash play. Ergonomics, 31, 1567–1572.
Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges
(Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231–244). New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 183–192.
*Rosenvinge, J. H., & Vig, C. (1993). Eating disorders and associated symptoms among
adolescent swimmers. Scandanavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 3,
164–169.
*Rossi, B., & Zoccolotti, R. (1979). Body perception in athletes and nonathletes. Percep-
tual and Motor Skills, 49, 723–726.
*Ryujin, D. H., Breaux, C., & Marks, A. D.(1999). Symptoms of eating disorders among
female distance runners: Can the inconsistencies be unraveled? Women & Health, 30,
71–83.
*Scott Robertson, L. (1996). A psychological comparison of competitive male bodybuild-
ers and females diagnosed with anorexia nervosa. Unpublished master’s thesis, York
University, Ontario, Canada.
Secord, P. F., & Jourard, P. F. (1953). The appraisal of body-cathexis: Body-cathexis and
the self. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 17, 343–347.
*Skowron, E. A., & Friedlander, M. L. (1994). Psychological separation, self-control, and
weight preoccupation among elite women athletes. Journal of Counseling and Devel-
opment, 72, 310–315.
Smith, D. E., Thompson, J. K., Raczynski, J. M., & Hilner, J. E. (1999). Body image
among men and women in a biracial cohort: The CARDIA study. International Jour-
nal o f Eat ing Disorde rs, 25, 71–82.
*Snyder, E. E., & Kivlin, J. E. (1975). Women athletes and aspects of psychological well-
being and body image. The Research Quarterly, 46, 191–199.
*Stafford, S. M. (1988). A comparative study of eating disorders in male university ath-
letes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, Washing-
ton, D.C.
*Sullivan, K. T., & Steel, D. H. (1991). An exploratory study of eating disorder character-
istics among adult female noncollegiate athletes. In D. H. Black (Ed.), Eating disor-
ders among athletes: Theory, issue s, and research (pp. 123–142). Reston, VA: Ameri-
can Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance.

339BODY IMAGE, ATHLETES
*Sundgot-Borgen, J. (1996). Eating disorders, energy intake, training volume, and men-
strual function in high-level modern rhythmic gymnasts. International Journal of Sport
Nutrition, 6, 100–109.
*Sundgot-Borgen, J., & Corbin, C. B. (1987). Eating disorders among female athletes. The
Physician and Sports Medicine, 16, 89–93.
*Sundgot-Borgen, J., & Larsen, S. (1993). Pathogenic weight-control methods and self-
reported eating disorders in female elite athletes and controls. Scandanavian Journal
of Me dicine and Science in Sports, 3, 150–155.
*Szymanski, L. A., & Chrisler, J. C. (1991). Eating disorders, gender-role, and athletic
activity. Psychology, A Journal of Human Behavior, 27, 20–29.
*Taub, D. E., & Blinde, E. M. (1992). Eating disorders among adolescent female athletes:
Influence of athletic participation and sport team membership. Adolescence, 27, 833–
847.
*Taylor, G., & Ste-Marie, D. M. (1998). Disordered eating tendencies among female pair
and dance figure skaters: Are they more at risk than non-athletes? Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psy chology, 19, S25.
*Theil, A., Gottfried, H., Hesse, F. W. (1993). Subclinical eating disorders in male athletes.
A study of the low weight category in rowers and wrestlers. Acta Psychiatrica
Scandanavica, 88, 259–265.
Thomas, J. R., & French, K. E. (1986). The use of meta-analysis in exercise and sport: A
tutorial. Res earch Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 57, 196–204.
Thompson, J. K., Heinberg, L. J., Altabe, M., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (1999). Exacting beau ty.
Theory, assessment, and treatment of body image disturbance. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
*Tobias, J. A. (1994). Desperate Measures: Eating disorders in female high school and
college athletes. Unpublished master’s thesis, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
*Warren, B. J., Stanton, A. L., & Blessing, D. L. (1990). Disordered eating patterns in
competitive female athletes. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 9, 565–569.
**Wilkins, J. A. (1995). Examination of restraint and body image disturbance: Compari-
son of intercollegiate athletes and nonathletes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
**Wilkins, J. A., Boland, F. J., & Albinson, J. (1991). A comparison of male and female
university athletes and nonathletes on eating disorder indices: Are athletes protected?
Journal of Sport Behavior, 14, 129–143.