Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By News Staff | December 11th 2008 12:00 AM | 25 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
Women's magazines such as The Oprah Magazine and Cosmopolitan portray cosmetic surgery as a physically risky but overall worthwhile option for enhancing physical appearance but a University of British Columbia study has found they aren't really addressing possible emotional health risks.

The study, published in Women's Health Issues journal, is the first to examine how women's magazines portray cosmetic surgery to Canadians, and also found that male opinions on female attractiveness are routinely used to justify cosmetic surgery and that a disproportionate amount of articles are devoted to breast implants and cosmetic surgery among women aged 19-34.

Magazines routinely present two "ideal" cosmetic surgery candidates, the study found: an unhappy, insecure, lonely woman looking to boost low self-confidence and self-esteem, and a successful, attractive, confident woman with high self-esteem who seeks cosmetic surgery to maintain perfection.

"These two profiles represent extremes of a wide range of attitudes, for which many women may view themselves as being somewhere in-between," says UBC sociology professor Richard Carpiano, a co-author of the study. "This potentially allows for cosmetic surgery to be presented as an option for many women regardless of their preoperative emotional state."

"Alongside beauty, clothing and diet advice, women's magazines present cosmetic surgery as a normal practice for enhancing or maintaining beauty, becoming more attractive to men and improving emotional health," says Andrea Polonijo, who conducted the research at UBC as an undergraduate honours thesis in the Dept. of Sociology. 

Polonijo, now a graduate student at University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health, examined how Canada's five most popular English-language women's magazines – Chatelaine, Cosmopolitan, O: The Oprah Magazine, Flare and Prevention – portray cosmetic surgery. The study focused on 35 articles published between 2002 and 2006.


Andrea Polonijo, lead author of the cosmetic surgery in womens' magazines study.  Photo : Carla Tsang

"Magazines are communicating the physical risks of cosmetic surgery more than the emotional health risks," says Polonijo, noting that studies have found that emotional health issues such as anxiety and depression may arise or increase in women who undergo physically successful cosmetic surgery, regardless of their preoperative emotional state. Of the articles that mention emotional health, only 18 per cent suggest cosmetic surgery may be detrimental to emotional well-being, the study found.

Men's opinions were often considered in these cosmetic surgery articles, with 29 percent discussing the impact that women's cosmetic surgery has on the male population.

Comments

Gerhard Adam's picture
At the risk of sounding sexist, I've found (only anecdotally) that women feel that men set higher standards for attractiveness, etc and thereby pressure women into feeling insecure or with low self-esteem.  In fact, it seems to me that the primary cause of this attitude is actually women's magazines.  All one has to do is superficially examine any of these magazines and you will be immediately assaulted with articles that try to put a nice spin on why you are fundamentally inadequate.

It seems that one way to boost women's self-esteem may be to stop reading women's magazines.

Hank's picture
You think someone created a business to tear down their market?   The capitalist in me reels at the notion.   I think they responded to a void - women (and, let's face it, men) want to be better and prefer having a lot of info in one place (ditto with science publications).  Some people set unrealistic goals, sure, but being better isn't bad.   I can go to a supermarket and see 5 articles on men's fitness. just as many as I see about women and appearance.   This does not mean men would stop feeling fat if the magazines disappeared.

I think the emotional health risks of cosmetic surgery is a 'concern' because grad students run out of things to write a thesis about.

Gerhard Adam's picture

"You think someone created a business to tear down their market?   The capitalist in me reels at the notion."

Why not?  The tobacco industry has been doing it for years.



Hank's picture
Actually, people are a renewable resource - even more, a growing one.   What you mean is that the government is doing it - they raise taxes on cigarettes, making themselves more reliant on that revenue, and then do PSAs against smoking.

Gerhard Adam's picture

Point taken ... however that would also apply to the women's magazines.



Hank's picture
I'm not sure I follow.  Women's magazines are not saying we need to have fewer beautiful women, the way a government does by limiting smoking while it increases its dependence on cigarette tax revenue by raising taxes on cigarettes, they're saying we should have more beautiful women and offer ways they think it can happen.

Gerhard Adam's picture
OK Hank, this all got started because of your comment regarding a business that was trying to tear down it's market.  I added that this was essentially what the tobacco industry was doing, since obviously some of it's customer's could die from it's product.  You mentioned that people were a renewable resource, so I responded that the same would apply to women's magazines, since any people they offended (or put off) would be replaced by the same renewable resources.

I think we just went in two different directions with the comments.

jtwitten's picture
While I agree, with Hank that concern about attractiveness existed long before men's and women's magazines.  Over-valuing physical beauty, whether by individuals or society, is likely a non-adaptive meme.  Magazines do reinforce this meme.  A small population size for ideas (power of [memetic] drift is strong), making it difficult for a better approach to invade the population.

The argument that the appeal of beauty is based on selection for healthy mates is probably true, to a degree.  But, that was back in some common ancestor when life expectancies were extremely low and damage from non-fatal diseases would not only be common, but more visible due to lack of medical intervention.

Of course, our concepts of beauty may all just be random chance or results of the way our visual system processes information (for example, processing a symmetrical face may be computationally less intensive, thus being easy on the eyes).  That is, of course, wild speculation.

Gerhard Adam's picture
"Of course, our concepts of beauty may all just be random chance or results of the way our visual system processes information ..."

I realize that this is a tangent to the discussion but I wanted to suggest that I don't believe that's the case, because it seems that our brain's are programmed to acknowledge certain general categories of appearance even without the value judgements.  For example, the recognition of babies or young adults isn't confined to our species, but rather we are capable of recognizing the young of many other species.  This would suggest that their appearance is sufficiently different from adults, but recognizable by us to be specific in terms of age grouping.  Similarly, I'm sure most everyone has experienced the same sense of appearance in evaluating some animals where they appear "prettier" than others.

jtwitten's picture
I don't think we are necessarily disagreeing.  There may have been selection for recognition.   The characteristics that are recognized, however, may have been arbitrary.

I like tangents.

Funny how only men seem to comment.

jtwitten's picture
But none of us have said anything about the lead author being cute.  Yet.

Hank's picture
There's no point in mentioning it.  The social sciences are littered with girls, so numbers alone mean plenty of cute ones.   In physics, it's somewhat more rare but not impossibe.   In the life sciences we know there is at least one.

...once again I am surprised that I am in agreement with Gerhard. Women standing in line at the grocery are assaulted right there by the woeful 20 something trainrail stareing back at them. Besides, the truth of these matters is like the beauty of a certain car...while Hank may like a Chevy, I suspect that Josh is a Honda fan...me I'm a Ford guy...and Gerhard??? DeSoto i'll bet ;-)

jtwitten's picture
I do pine for the reliability and gas mileage of my dear departed Honda Civic.   

Stellare's picture
Beauty seems to be the issue here judging by a quick superficial glance at the comments. I command more beautiful men, both in science and everywhere else, including outer space!

A female has spoken.

Yes! finally.

The anonymous is in fact a female.

Hank's picture
Lara - Then not all of the commenters are male, right?

Bente - the only objectification around here shall be done by us men.   Because of your sexism, Josh will now be curled up in the corner, sobbing and wondering why he is too sexy to be loved.

jtwitten's picture
DI did that before Bente's comment.  Does that mean I have to cry more now?

Stellare's picture
Yes, you do.

Stellare's picture
You know very well that objectivity is not only a virtue but an absolute requirement in the exact sciences. Thus objectification will be done by ALL FEMALES. I know Lara is with my on this.

Just because one owns a science blogg one cannot overrule the rules of science.

Now, go sob in corners while studying I'm too sexy [for science].

jtwitten's picture
Watching Right Said Fred does make the sobbing easier.  Boo hoo.

Hank's picture
But he didn't mention science at all.   Since it's the YouTube age, I thought about remaking it with improved lyrics ("I'm too sexy for my agar", etc.) but leather suspenders and no shirt is not really the kind of 'signaling' we do on this site.

...perfect..

ok Hank, I happen to like leather suspenders and no shirt....on my wife. Which always sends me a strong signal once I arrive home. It's in the gene's...

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.