LGBT community events in south west England. Ethics approval for this research was granted by ethics committees at the University of Bath and the University of the West of England. A total of 349 men accessed the online questionnaire and consented to take part in the study. Of these men, 149 (42.7%) were removed from the final sample as they completed less than 50% of the questionnaire. Due to inadequate power to explore differences between men identifying with other sexual orientations, we also excluded 31 men who did not identify as gay or heterosexual. The final sample consisted of 155 men, aged 18-69 years (M = 28.83, SD = 9.93), with 49.7% self-identifying as gay and 50.3% as heterosexual. The sample was primarily White British (76.1%), with smaller numbers of participants identifying as “White Other” (10.3%), “Mixed” (3.9%), “Asian or Asian British” (3.2%), “Black or Black British” (1.2%), “Chinese” (.6%) and “Other” (4.5%). The majority of participants were in employment (69%, 28% students, 3% unemployed) and were within the healthy weight body mass index (BMI) range (69.6%; M = 24.47, SD = 4.81). After logging on to the questionnaire website and providing consent, participants were asked to complete the measures outlined below, followed by demographic questions about their age, height, weight, sexual orientation, employment status and ethnicity. Upon completion of the study, participants were offered the chance to enter a prize draw for a £20 Amazon gift voucher. Measures Male Body Attitudes Scale-Revised (MBAS-R; Ryan, Morrison, Roddy, & McCutcheon, 2011). The MBAS-R is a 15-item measure that assesses men’s body fat dissatisfaction (5 items; e.g., “I feel excessively fat”), height dissatisfaction (3 items; e.g., “I wish I were taller”) and muscularity dissatisfaction (7 items; e.g., “I think my legs are not muscular enough”). Responses are rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (rarely) to 5
negative (52.7%) appearance conversations, indicating these conversations exist for the majority of men. Comparisons between gay and heterosexual men Multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVA) were carried out to determine if gay and heterosexual men differed in (1) levels of body fat-, height- and muscularity- dissatisfaction, (2) levels of appearance orientation and internalization of appearance ideals and (3) the frequency at which they engage in positive and negative appearance conversations after controlling for age. Body dissatisfaction. The MANCOVA on measures of body fat-, height- and muscularity- dissatisfaction indicated a significant multivariate effect (F (3,129) = 5.07, p = .002, partial ŋ2 = .11) after controlling for age (p = .001). There were also significant univariate effects for sexuality on body fat- (F (1,131) = 6.34, p = .013, partial ŋ2 = .046) and muscularity- (F (1,131) = 12.99, p < .001, partial ŋ2 = .090) dissatisfaction. Specifically, as predicted, gay men reported greater levels of dissatisfaction with their body fat and muscularity in comparison to heterosexual men. However, there was no significant univariate effect for sexuality on height dissatisfaction (F (1,131) = .001, p = .975, partial ŋ2 = .00), indicating that gay and heterosexual men did not differ in their levels of dissatisfaction with height. Appearance orientation and internalization of appearance ideals. The MANCOVA indicated a significant multivariate effect (F (3,128) = 5.66, p = .001, partial ŋ2 = .12) controlling for age (p = .07). There were also significant univariate effects for sexuality on appearance orientation (F (1,130) = 15.14, p < .001, partial ŋ2 = .104) and general-internalization (F (1,131) = 6.71, p = .011, partial ŋ2 = .049). As predicted, gay men reported higher levels of appearance orientation and internalization of the general appearance ideal than heterosexual men. In contrast to predictions, gay men did not report greater levels
c = R2 = .167, Adj R2 = .140 F(4,126) = 6.294, p < .001*** Appearance orientation Total effect .557 .143 3.91 < .001*** Direct effect .464 .147 3.15 .002** Indirect effect .094 .053 5.16 < .001*** < .01 .22 < .01 .22 Positive ACb .060 .047 ~ >.05 < -.01 .19 < .01 .19 Negative ACb .034 .041 ~ >.05 -.02 .17 .16 c = R2 = .14, Adj R2 = .11 F(4,125) = 5.16, p < .001*** effect .45 .17 2.57 .011* Direct effect .24 .173 1.39 .168
Indirect effect .213 .079 7.33 < .001*** .08 .40 .08 .41 Positive ACb .122 .064 ~ < .05* .03 .30 .03 .30 Negative ACb .091 .059 ~ < .05* < .01 .25 < .01 .25 c = R2 = .19, Adj R2 = .16 F(4,126) = 7.33, p < .001*** Note. and accelerated bootstrap confidence intervals. bAC = appearance conversations. * p < .05 **. p < .01. *** p < .001