Will Labeling Retouched Photos Improve Consumers' Body Image?

The first time I went to France at age 16, I was immediately smitten. Everything French seemed so exotic, stylish and classy. I returned with fashion magazines in a language I couldn’t understand, but I loved the pictures.

Today, I wouldn't want my own daughter, whom I'm taking to France next year, to return from our trip with fashion magazines. These days, all pictures (in all countries) are retouched. Nothing we see is “real.” So, those of us viewing the pictures can be easily led to believe that beautiful women don’t have cellulite, wrinkles or fat, and that good-looking men are born practically hairless – aside from that perfectly wavy hair on their heads, of course.

These unrealistic media portrayals likely contribute to the widespread body dissatisfaction, appearance anxiety and body shame that affects the majority of girls and women – and a growing portion of boys and men – today. These concerns are not superficial. They can predispose people to eating disorders, interpersonal distress and mental health conditions. As a result, body image experts and public health professionals are advocating for more diverse and realistic portrayals of beauty in the media or, at the very least, documentation of all retouching.

Now, the fashion-forward French are taking the lead. Come October, France is requiring that any advertisement featuring a retouched image of a model – aka “photographie retouchée” – must disclose this fact or the company faces a fine of more than $41,000.

Will this work to reduce body dissatisfaction?

Unfortunately, probably not as much as activists had hoped. In one recent experiment that included nearly 2,000 women, researchers found that disclaimers about photo alterations and subvertising (social commentary added to the image) did not have have the positive impact on body image that advocates anticipated. In another study, researchers found that the extent to which women were likely to compare themselves to images in fashion magazines was far more predictive of body dissatisfaction than the presence of any “disclaimer” about the images. Somewhat related, food labels and calorie information haven’t been as effective in helping consumers make healthier choices as public health professionals would have hoped, either.

So, what's going on?

Unfortunately, information does not always provide the power required for people to be thoughtful or make good decisions. According to cognitive psychologists, people tend to have two different thought systems: a fast, intuitive, nearly automatic way of responding to information and a slower, interpretive system that requires conscious effort, attention and deliberation. When presented with a captivating image of a model (or a juicy hamburger), we respond automatically. We want to look like the model (and eat the hamburger) – even when our rational brains know it's impossible to look like the model and inadvisable to eat the burger. We have a difficult time slowing our thought processes down and introducing logic once we’ve already responded emotionally.

So, although I think legislation to require photo labeling is laudable, what would be even better would be for photos not to be retouched in the first place. It seems pretty clear that a disclaimer is just not enough to eliminate the effects of unrealistic media images. For now, leave such magazines in the checkout line. While there is some evidence supporting media literacy – essentially the ability to consume media with an educated, critical eye – as a way to prevent some of its negative effects, we don't seem to know what really works. Avoiding media that has a negative effect is one of the best options. Surround yourself with positive, real family and friends instead.