Data collection instruments

Two methods of data collection were chosen for the present study. Firstly, in order to gain a general description of the nature of the sample in relation to details relevant to body image, the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ) (Brown, Cash & Mikulka, 1990), presented as Appendix II, was selected. The second method, and primary technique used for data collection, was to be a semi-structured interview presented as Appendix III.

5.3.1 The body image scale

The MBSRQ is a self-report inventory that enables the researcher to assess the valence attributed to three domains of body experience (i.e. appearance, fitness, and health/illness). As an assessment tool, the MBSRQ is expected to provide a view on the “attitudinal disposition [on the] physical self” (Cash, 1994, p. 1). This attitudinal disposition has been standardized for female and male normal populations in the United States. Its applicability to this project was to be as a standard on the characteristics of the sample in relation to specified aspects of the body image defined within the discipline of psychology.

At the time the research was undertaken, the MBSRQ had been reported by Thompson, Penner and Altabe (1990) to be the most widely validated instrument of its kind. They also described it as the most comprehensive and psychometrically sound. Its internal consistency had been found at between .75 and .91. Thompson, et al. reported that the test-retest reliability for the MBSRQ had been established at between .78 and .94. Normative data were made available with the User’s Manual (Cash, 1994a). However, it should be noted that these norms were constructed from data collated in the United States. No Australian norms were available. There were thus limits to what could be inferred from the MBSRQ.

In spite of these limitations it was considered that the MBSRQ was pertinent to this study since it might serve to locate the qualitative findings within the context of structural-functional ideas in psychology. Its strength was that it provided a framework through which to interpret an attitudinal disposition for each participant with regard to certain aspects of the body image and thus organize information about a set of psychological dimensions attributed to normal experience, rather than psychological disturbance.

The MBSRQ has sixty-nine items, each requiring a response on a 5-point Likert scale. The measurement of attitude items is structured as 1-definitely disagree to 5-definitely agree, of behavior items as 1-never to 5-very often, of perception items as 1-very underweight through 3-

normal weight to 5-very overweight and of evaluation items as 1-very dissatisfied to 5-very satisfied. The ten sub-scales generated are described as follows:

(a) Appearance Evaluation relates to feelings associated with physical attractiveness, unattractiveness, satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

(b) Appearance Orientation relates to the level of importance placed upon appearance. (c) Fitness Evaluation relates to whether one feels physically fit or unfit.

(d) Fitness Orientation refers to the level of emotional investment in feelings of fitness or athleticism.

(e) Health Evaluation relates to a sense that the body is free from physical illness or to feelings of positive health and a sense of wellbeing.

(f) Health Orientation relates to the extent to which ‘healthy lifestyle’ ideas shape conscious activity.

(g) Illness Orientation relates to the intensity of the feelings associated with any physical symptoms including the tendency to apply for medical attention.

(h) Body-areas Satisfaction relates satisfaction or dissatisfaction with discrete areas of the body.

(i) Self-classified Weight relates to how one perceives and labels one’s weight from ‘very underweight’ to ‘very overweight’.

(j) Overweight Preoccupation relates to ideas that reflect the level of vigilance used in activities pertaining to a preoccupation with weight like a restraint on eating or persistent dieting.

Each subscale had a range of items allocated. Each subscale was computed according to the criteria outlined in the User’s Manual (Cash, 1994a). For example, the compute statement for Fitness Evaluation was listed as (B24 - B33 + B51 + 6) / 3. Each subscale was computed according to its specified statement.

5.3.2 The semi-structured interview protocol

The semi-structured interview protocol or the interview guide, presented as Appendix III, was developed specifically for the present study to elicit accounts of experience of the body in movement. It comprises open-ended questions that would enable the researcher to maintain consistency between the interviews and a focus during each one. The topics covered by the interview guide were organized around two sections. The first pertained to movement and the second dealt with settings influencing performances and actual performances. Overall it permitted an exploration of the dynamic body image through interview questions asked about participants’ knowledge of their movement. That knowledge would be of unknown character, but according to Schilder (1935/1978), is brought about through their movement. As discussed in Chapter two above, movement encourages the development of insight into the body image in a way that is as yet undocumented in the discipline of psychology.

Questions in the protocol were constructed to maximize the level of detail in participants’ responses. Some questions explore the knowledge that participants may feel they have acquired through their movement. In these questions, movement was interpreted as procedural knowledge and thereby a form of memory. Questions in the protocol also set out to maximize opportunities to compare participants’ responses both within and between groups. One of the most important considerations guiding the construction of the interview protocol was that all questions should strictly avoid ideas that might encourage participants to focus on their body as an object. Emphasis upon movement, according to Schilder (1935/1978), was expected to elicit an understanding of the body image, but would not require participants become overly conscious of their bodily appearance during the interview.

The first questions were general, asking participants to describe their movement. These were followed by broad questions that set out to understand the context in which each participant first chose her movement style. Succeeding questions focused more directly on pertinent aspects of movement experience, followed by specific questions about the movement and the body.

The second section, dealing with the settings influencing performances and with the actual performances, asked interviewees to describe the settings in which they perform and the physical or social constraints differentiating one performance from another. Subsequent questions then asked participants to describe specific details about their preparation, their performances and the expectations they have with regard to performing. Later questions explored the relationship between performance and the body. One of these would prompt participants to reflect on the effect that cultural expectations about the female body might have on their work as performers. The last questions oriented the interview to closure.

Two pilot interviews were conducted prior to the formalization of the final interview guide. The practice experience at each pilot enabled the revision of a draft guide according to question sequence and the specificity required in the phrasing of questions. After each pilot, the draft interview guide was revised for expression, item appropriateness and clarity. Three revisions were carried out overall. Two revisions were conducted after each pilot interview. The third revision was made immediately prior to the first research interview and included edits to expression and flow between questions, rather than the content.