Prevalence of Eating Disorder Risk and Body Image in NCAA Collegiate Cheerleaders

Abstract

Cheerleading, an aesthetic sport; may have implications of potential eating disorders (ED) and body image (BI) distortion. Discrepancy between perceived (PBI) and desired body image (DBI) has been associated with a variety of maladaptive thoughts and behaviors but little is known about clothing type and proxy body image perceptions (e.g., an athletes' perception of what others perceive about that athlete's body). PURPOSE: To estimate prevalence of ED risk in cheerleaders by position (base-B, flyers-F, back spots-BS) and to investigate clothing type (daily clothing -DC, Midriff uniform- MU, Full uniform- FU) and proxy BI (peers-P, parents-PA, coaches-CO) interactions in discrepancy scores across cheerleading position. METHODS: Collegiate cheerleaders (n=136) (B: n=54; F: n=61; BS: n=21) from NCAA Division I (n=24) and II (n=2) institutions participated in the online survey. Participants self-reported height, weight, and ideal weight. Eating Attitudes Test (EAT-26) was used to estimate ED risk. Gender-base BMI silhouette was used to assess body image. Questions regarding PBI and DBI in DC, MU, vs. FU and athletes' perceptions of their P, PA, and COs' PBI and DBI in DC were asked. RESULTS: Prevalence for ED risk was estimated at 33.1% (95% CI: 33.1% ± 7.9%) and then separated by position: B=31.5% (95% CI: 31.5% ± 12.4%), F=36.1% (95% CI: 36.1% ± 12.1%) and BS=28.6% (95% CI: 28.6% ± 19.3%). A 3 (position) x 3 (clothing type) x 2 (PBI, DBI) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last two factors indicated a clothing type x perceptions interaction (p<0.01). The largest BI dissatisfaction was shown for MU (22.74 vs. 20.28kg/m2) compared to DC (22.24 vs. 20.67kg/m2) or FU (22.15 vs. 20.57kg/m2). A second 3 (position) x 3 (proxy) x 2 (PBI, DBI) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last two factors indicated a perceptions x proxy interaction (p<0.01); showing the largest BI dissatisfaction from CO (22.62 vs. 20.48kg/m2) compared to P (21.65 vs. 21.34kg/m2) or PA (21.85 vs. 221.26kg/m2). CONCLUSION: Regardless of position, one third of cheerleaders were at risk for eating disorders. MU and discrepancy scores between athletes' perceptions of what coaches' think they look like compared to what they should look like are implicated in body dissatisfaction warranting further examination as correlates of maladaptive thoughts and behaviors.