Body Neutrality Isn't New or Unique From Positive Body Image

Source: Anna Shvets / Pexels

Body neutrality is a recent movement that is increasingly visible in the public eye, with celebrities such as Jameela Jamil and Lizzo describing that they support body neutrality. Body neutrality is increasingly visible in academic literature, too.

Across these spheres, body neutrality is directly contrasted with positive body image and body positivity as being more feasible. In a recent position paper for the journal, Body Image: An International Journal of Research, my colleagues and I identified 10 myths that are being spread across body neutrality discourses and provided evidence to challenge them.

Overall, we find that body neutrality is not new or unique from positive body image. Here’s why.

Myth 1: Positive body image and body positivity are the same.

Although there are similarities between positive body image and body positivity, they have unique origins and critical differences.

The concept of positive body image is based on decades of research. This research shows that key characteristics of positive body image include (a) appreciating one’s body, including its functionality (i.e., what the body can do, rather than how it looks); (b) accepting the body, regardless of whether it meets societal norms for how a body “should” look and/or function; and (c) respecting and taking care of the body via adaptive behaviors (e.g., joyful physical activity).

According to research, people with a positive body image view their appearance as much less important than their body functionality and other valued qualities like education. Body image is flexible and changes over time, with “good body image days” and “bad body image days.” Those with a positive body image accept these fluctuations and show self-compassion on difficult days.

In contrast, body positivity is a movement that aims to encourage body acceptance and can be traced back to critical feminist movements in the 1960s. Over time, it has become increasingly visible on social media. While many social media posts tagged as “body positivity” promote body acceptance for all types of bodies, a portion of content reinforces societal norms and the idea that having a “positive body image” means loving the way you look, all the time. While positive body image is based on academic research that follows the scientific method, body positivity content can be created by anyone, with any motivation (e.g., to promote positive body image vs. to sell products).

Unfortunately, most discourse on body neutrality misses these distinctions between positive body image and the body positivity movement, and equates one with the other. For example, positive body image is often summarized as “loving the way you look,” but this is not true based on decades of academic research.

Myth 2: Positive body image isn’t realistic or attainable.

Research shows that moving toward a more positive body image is indeed feasible, for example through targeted interventions, even for people with eating disorders or substantial body dissatisfaction. We also know that people can journey from experiencing a predominantly negative body image to experiencing a predominantly positive body image over time, even if they perceive their body as different from societal norms. Further, across studies, many people report high levels of positive body image.

Myth 3: Body neutrality is unique from positive body image and body positivity.

Descriptions of body neutrality typically include the following elements: (a) it is a “neutral” attitude toward the body that is more realistic than positive body image and body positivity (notice Myths 1-2 perpetuated here); (b) it involves appreciating, respecting, and caring for the functionality of the body and treating the body with respect; (c) it involves being mindful of and accepting of bad body image days; and (d) it de-emphasizes appearance and encourages tying self-worth to internal qualities and to external contributors like hobbies.

However, elements (b)-(d) are in fact key characteristics of positive body image as established based on the research (see Myth 1). With respect to (a), in Myth 5, we address what it means to have a “neutral” attitude toward the body.

.Myth 4: Body neutrality is a more realistic alternative to positive body image and body positivity.

Part of the appeal of the body neutrality movement is the claim that “loving your body” is not a realistic goal. Indeed, proponents of body neutrality suggest that it “may present as a more attainable and accessible pursuit for a greater number of people”¹ and that “it’s kind of a long jump to move to body positivity from dissatisfaction.”²

Body Image Essential Reads

Improving Body Image Among People With a Visible Difference

Does the "Mid-Size" Fashion Label Hurt Your Body Image?

The problem here is that positive body image and body positivity are being narrowly conceptualized and promoted as simply “loving your appearance.” This opens the door for body neutrality to be viewed incorrectly as a more sensible, realistic, and novel concept while simultaneously creating a reductionistic description of toxic body positivity as synonymous with positive body image.

Of note, no current empirical evidence exists for body neutrality as a body image construct, and there is no measure of body neutrality. Instead, body neutrality proponents have borrowed constructs from positive body image and labeled them as “body neutrality,” concluding that body neutrality is associated with well-being. Research studies support the validity of positive body image rather than body neutrality.

Myth 5: Body neutrality is a midpoint on a continuum, with negative body image and positive body image as endpoints.

Within body neutrality writings, body image is viewed as a continuum that ranges from negative body image at one end, to positive body image at the other end. According to this perspective, having a high positive body image means having a low negative body image. Body neutrality is then imagined as a middle point between negative and positive body image. While intuitive, this perspective is inconsistent with research findings.

Rather, extensive research supports that positive and negative body image are each separate constructs measured on their own continuum. It is possible to exhibit variations of negative and positive body image simultaneously (e.g., a person might feel dissatisfied with aspects of their appearance but also appreciative of their body functionality). Positive body image is uniquely associated with various measures of health and well-being after controlling for negative body image .

Ultimately, if we know that positive and negative body image exist on alternate continua, then we are left with the question of whether body neutrality (as currently defined) actually exists, and if so, how it can align with that which is already established in scholarly work.

Putting it all together: Why does it matter?

The fact that these myths are being perpetuated matters for many reasons. For example:

• Promoting that positive body image is unrealistic and toxic means that many people may mistakenly think that positive body image is not worth pursuing for themselves or others (e.g., their clients), thus missing the established health benefits of positive body image.

• Promoting positive body image as unrealistic and toxic is a misrepresentation of 20 years of established research findings, which shows the opposite.

• Taking established characteristics of positive body image and labeling them as “body neutrality” creates confusion across academic literature and may lead to unnecessary spending of limited resources on “new” research, development, and dissemination.

At the core, the motives underlying the promotion of body neutrality and positive body image are complementary: improving people’s body image to lead full lives that are not encumbered by how they think and feel about their body. In the spirit of moving closer to this shared aim and based on the 10 myths and their respective evidence, we offer recommendations for a general audience and specific considerations for researchers, clinicians, and the media, which can be seen here (under Supplementary Materials).