...What the literature does not investigate however, is the links between cultural
pressures and biased interpretation. If body image is biased by cultural ‘norms’
would not, for example, perception of non-body objects also be affected? Does
culture not also ascribe attractiveness criterion on the ‘world’ itself?  The question
remains as to whether cultural definitions of aesthetic attractiveness incorporate 
non-body objects as well as body image itself, and if the interpretations of both 
are consequently biased.

The second factor that may be responsible for  biased interpretations relates to 
whether we actually see things differently, arguably the ‘actual’ of the 
Self-Discrepancy Theory.  Rather than being influenced by culture which may 
affect body image perception, research has also investigated whether body 
image distortion is itself part of a cognitive bias that affects perception. If body 
schemata is a perceptual process, then the assumption would be that a cognitive 
function itself is responsible for a biased interpretation of body image, and possibly 
non-body viewing. 

Williamson (1996), in investigating the influence of cognitive biases in BID 
concludes that the “…central psychopathological concerns of an individual bias the 
manner in which information is processed.” (p.48). This statement would seem to 
indicate that a perceptual distortion of body image could bias how information
external to it is perceived. Williamson (1996) focuses on four main areas of 
cognitive bias in body image, but of particular interest to this study is ‘Judgement 
Bias’. This represents (as with previously discussed studies on overestimation) a 
distortion in the judgement of body image. For example, Watkins et al (1995 cited 
in Williamson 1996) found that when presenting ambiguous stimuli (e.g. the word 
chest) to those with high (BID) and low body image concerns, those with high BID 
had a higher incidence of body shape interpretation than those with least body 
image concerns. Williamson (1996) interprets these findings as arguments for a 
“…reconceptualization of body image disturbance as a form of cognitive bias.” (p.53) 
Because the participants had no stimuli to guide their responses (e.g. a mirror), 
their judgement relied upon cognitively represented self-schemata. Therefore, the 
cognitively represented view of body image may be biasing perception even in the 
absence of a judgement aid. 

The question remains as to how a supposed perceptual bias effects the view of the 
world. Lutzenberger, Elbert, Rockstroh, Birbaumer and Stegagno (1981) investigated 
BID and physical anhedonia (PA) which is a deficiency in the experience of pleasure.
Lutzenberger et al (1981) cite a classification of BID by Eddel and Chapman (1979) 
which includes the statement “…transient deviancies in perceiving non-body sights, 
sounds, and objects” (p.322). This intimates a relationship between body image and 
non-body sights. Lutzenberger et al specifically investigates BID and PA in relation 
to electrocortical patterns when perceiving visual stimuli and the contingency 
patterns between them. The two sets of participants of particular interest here are 
those with high scores on both the BID and PA questionnaire, and those with low 
scores on both. They presented participants with a video screen upon which a light 
was flashed for six seconds on the left and right sides independently (and they 
were asked to fixate on a central point) which was a warning signal for an adverse 
stimuli (a loud noise). Participants would escape the adverse stimuli if they pressed 
a button one second after the warning stimulus was presented. EEG, ECG, Skin 
conductanceresponses and eye movement were taken. 

The results showed that participants with high scores on both BID and PA had a 
more pronounced postimperative negative variation (PINV) which is a detection of 
contingencies between stimuli that causes a negative shift of brain functioning. 
This indicates more cortical ‘negativity’ and frontally pronounced processing. 
Therefore, it would appear from Lutzenberger et al’s (1981) study, that having a 
low body image and physical anhedonia meant participants took longer to register 
the possible presence of a negative stimuli because of a deficit in evaluating 
whether the stimuli was ‘pleasurable’ to them or not. Elbert, Lutzenberger, 
Rockstroh and Birbaumer (1983) hypothesise that successful PINV and cortical 
regulation is achieved by participants with low scores on BID and PA, whilst those 
with high scores show a disturbance in the front cortical system which modulates 
the processing of stimuli. They suggest this could also indicate an inadequate 
representation of the physical environment.

The notion of a damaged or inhibited ‘pleasure capacity’ within body image is of 
particular interest to this investigation.  Do we see our body image negatively 
because of a cognitive bias that affects our capacity to receive pleasure from our 
own appearance and the world?  Alternatively, do we see our body image 
negatively because we do not adhere to culturally defined norms (perhaps due to 
depression, which will be discussed later) and therefore view the world with a 
similar classification?  Both or either of the explanations have the implication of 
affecting the aesthetic appreciation of the self and possibly the external world 
and could bias interpretation.  As Smirnov (1981) states “...it is not the world of 
images, but an image of the world that guides human activity.”  (p.6).  Is the 
pleasure derived from viewing our image of the world, biased by body image?

Aesthetic judgement is an autonomous interpretation of the world.  Every time we 
make an observation we are forming aesthetic judgements based on perceived 
beauty and accumulation of feeling.  Can body image affect our esthetic 
appreciation?  Townsend (1997) says, “…perception becomes aesthetic as a result 
of some more complex perceptual shifts that affect our experience.”  (p.148).  
These perceptual shifts may be the product of cultural conditioning and/or a 
cognitive bias, which affect body image and may shift our esthetical experience to
the negative (or in the case of a high body image: the positive) hence impeding 
(or enhancing) our pleasure of the world.  Therefore, if body image concerns are 
viewed as a facet of such biased interpretation it may be reasonable to suppose 
that they have a demonstrable affect upon our aesthetic appreciation of non-body 
stimuli.

This question is a previously uninvestigated area of body image research.  
Therefore, to test this hypothesis an indication of body image satisfaction would 
need to be gained.  As body image itself is dynamic and multidimensional, the 
MBSRQ (Cash 2000a) offers the best indicator of body image and as Cash (2000b) 
states; the MBSRQ has strong construct validities, discriminate qualities and 
convergence.  As the perceptual shifts, which give rise to body image concerns 
may be the product of the interplay between social or cognitive factors; two 
alternative sets of stimuli were employed to evaluate this

Judgements about aesthetic experience of the world were obtained using 
photographic scenes including sunsets, urban and natural settings from different 
seasons.  These images of the ‘real world’ were chosen to represent views familiar 
to participants.  The images may also have subtle socio-cultural indicators of 
aesthetic attractiveness (for example, a scene may be ‘picturesque’ or ‘over 
industrialised’).  The second set of images has no socio-cultural significance as 
they consist of nonsense patterns.  Adolphs & Tranel (1999) originally used these 
stimuli in their study of the role amygdala in the recognition of non-social stimuli.  
The ‘real world’ images were chosen to indicate if any biased interpretation 
between body image and visual stimuli had a ‘social’ origin.  The nonsense 
images were chosen to indicate if biased interpretation could be a ‘cognitive’ 
based discrepancy.  

This investigation will focus specifically on women, as the differences between
male and female body images are well documented.  For example, Furnham and 
Greaves (1994) found that there was a significant difference between men and 
women in their body image satisfaction, and that women were more likely to suffer 
from low self-esteem associated with this.  Muth and Cash (1997) also found that 
women had more frequent BID and accompanying depression.  Age is also arguably 
a factor in body image, as body image is subject to age-related changes (Dittmar 
et al 2000, Champion and Furnham 1999).  As culture may have a possible 
relationship with body image, it is anecdotally assumed that different cultures 
will have different views on body image ‘norms’.  Therefore, the present study 
remained intra- rather than inter-cultural...