In today's world, it is far too common to roll out of bed, look in the mirror, and shame ourselves for the way we look. It seems to have become the norm for people to feel as though they are not meeting society's standards and to believe they are not "good enough." But what does "good enough" even look like? What images and ideals have been presented before us that defines what is "beautiful"?

Well, it's quite simple. Open up a magazine. Actually, you do not need to even open it, because right on the cover, there's probably a 5'10" model with long legs, tan skin, and a flat stomach staring you square in the face. How are we supposed to compare with that? We can't, and that's the issue. These images aren't real, they are full of enhancements, additions, deletions, and all things in between. These enhancements are not just limited to magazines, either. They are being performed on television, billboards, social networking sites, catalogs, etc. With these false perceptions constantly placed in front of us, our self concept, or mental image one has of oneself, is skewed. Through a psychological lens, we can gain a better understanding as to why these altered images are harming the people of our society. Looking at different theories and concepts, it becomes evident why in today's society people are at a constant battle with themselves for believing they do not measure up to the modern beauty standard. 

Carl Rogers, a humanistic psychologist, is accredited with his Humanistic Theory of Personality Development. He believed that a human's main goal in life is to self -- actualize, or achieve one's full potential (McLeod). However, due to the unachievable beauty standards that have been set by the media, it is nearly impossible for one to believe that he or she is close to reaching maximum potential. Saul McLeod, a psychology tutor at The University of Manchester, compares our ability to grow to a flowers, stating that we are "Like a flower that will grow to its full potential if the conditions are right" (McLeod). The key to this statement is that growth will only take place if the environment is ideal. As soon as the conditions are anything less, they become destructive and limit the ability for one to self-actualize. A world full of Photoshop-ed ads, where fake, unachievable images are setting the standard for beauty, is anything but a healthy environment. If the surroundings are not realistic, supportive, and aiding in our growth, then they are simply detrimental. Because the environment created by the media is unhealthy, its false perceptions are leading to self esteem issues, depression, eating disorders, the list goes on. The reason for these issues can be explained through Carl Rogers' notion of self concept. 

The self concept has two major components: the self image and the ideal self (McLeod). The self image is how people see themselves, looks and personality wise (McLeod). When they look in a mirror, this is their reality. On the other hand, there is the ideal self, or what a person aspires to be like. If there is a large gap between the two components, that individual is said to be in a state of incongruence; however, when the two overlap, the individual is said to be in a state of congruence. Carl Rogers believed that self-actualization is only possible when in a state of congruence (McLeod). This means that in order for someone to reach full potential, his or her self image must be similar to the image he or she aspires to have. With today's advertisements containing models that have been retouched to no end, people are aiming towards unachievable goals. The gap between our how they see themselves and what they would like to become continues to widen, and as a result their self-esteem plummets. This large gap between the two makes it virtually impossible for one to feel as though he or she is "good enough". As sad as it is that people have such distorted perceptions of their self-image, it's a problem that the world is facing. In an age where the media has a huge impact on society, many have limited hope of ever reaching full potential.

So then, why does the media continue to alter the bodies of their models? Well, for starters, many companies behind the editing and the Photoshop do not believe that they are doing anything wrong. While fully admitting that the images they are presenting are not raw and natural, they think that it is time consumers realize this, and begin to view themselves as more than their bodies (Chen). In a magazine article from The Cut, Amanda Fortini agrees with this idea and claims that the problem does not lie in the altered photographs, but rather society. She goes on to say, "So, let's get real with ourselves, as viewers. Look around. We know perfectly well what women look like" (Fortini). Here, she is putting the blame on consumers, stating that they all know the images are not in correspondence to real life women. Not only do the companies think consumers need to take a step back, but they believe consumers are being hypocritical. Alice Chen, the Senior Associate Editor at Her Campus, questions, "Are magazines not doing what we do every morning when we pick out an outfit, swipe on our makeup and style our hair? We present ourselves to the public each day in what we've prepared as the best versions of ourselves, just like magazines publish their work every month to perfection as they see fit" (Chen). She, along with others, believe that when people alter their appearance daily through clothing and beauty products, they are doing nothing differently then the media outlets.

At first glance, the arguments made by the companies behind all of the editing can be highly convincing. It seems like it would be easy enough for consumers take a step back and reevaluate if the images they are seeing in the media are 100% real or not, and then go on with their day unaffected; however, that is not the case. These Photoshop-edited images of "beautiful" women and men leave a lasting impression, and their affects are anything but positive. In a study done at Stanford University, sixty-eight percent of their undergraduate and graduate students felt worse about their own appearance after looking through women's magazines ("Eating Disorders"). This is where editors would say that consumers are in the wrong, and that it is their own fault they cannot realize the difference between a retouched image and reality. However, it is not that easy to be left unaffected by these pictures. Psychologist Leon Festinger's Social Comparison Theory states that "we seek to compare ourselves to others we believe are similar to ourselves, particularly to determine our own levels of abilities and successes" (Bessenoff). It's a fact of life that humans compare themselves to those they see around them, and researchers found that the mere exposure to idealized body images lowers an individual's contentment with his or her own attractiveness. This is because of something called upward social comparison, or the comparison to others we perceive to be better than ourselves (Bessenoff). This type of comparison, which consumers do daily to images in the media, generally leads to a negative mood and can threaten self-evaluation (Bessenoff). This constant self-comparison to extremely thin models in the media is fostering distorted body image, and the high prevalence is concerning health professionals ("Eating Disorders"). Seventy-five percent of women at a healthy weight believe that they are overweight, and ninety percent of women overestimate their body size ("Eating Disorders"). These numbers are staggering, and its no coincidence that the public is feeling this way. When the media creates a "perfect" model through Photoshop, the consumers' natural instinct is to emulate what they see and attempt to match up to the images put forth. If it is instinctive for individuals to compare themselves to others, then the argument that people need to see themselves as more than their bodies is irrelevant. Because the images of thin models are unattainable to most, low-self esteem is a far too common result. and that is just the beginning. 

Photoshop-edited images in the media can eventually lead to risky behaviors that can be explained through Carl Roger's Humanistic Theory of Personality Development. Rogers believed that people need to meet two specific needs: Unconditional Positive Regard and Self Worth; however, these needs sometimes fall short of being met because people do not feel that they are matching up to societies standards (McLeod). A person is said to have unconditional positive regard when he or she feels valued and respected (McLeod). He or she has a sense of belongingness and is not self conscious because he or she feels accepted as is. However, if an individual has low self worth, which is a common result after being exposed to altered media images, he or she may begin to avoid any of life's challenges (McLeod). When anything less than ideal is thrown at that individual, he or she will become withdrawn and defensive towards others, rather than accepting any troubles that life throws his or her way (McLeod). This can be seen through defense mechanisms such as denial or repression in order to not feel as threatened by the pain caused from seeing false images and having low self-worth as a result (McLeod). These defense mechanisms leave people feeling withdrawn from society and are the start of a downward spiral, leading to health behaviors and social problems such as depression, anxiety, body dysmorphic disorder, eating disorders, and suicidal tendencies (Kim). All behaviors are serious and are direct effects of the use of Photoshop in the media, but looking at the truth behind eating disorders alone should be enough to realize a change needs to be made. In the recent past, the number of research studies focusing on disordered eating behaviors has increased dramatically because of the emphasis Western societies place on thinness (Kim). This trend shows that this problem is on the rise, and cannot be ignored. Those who have eating disorders tend to perceive themselves as unrealistically large and strictly rely on their own opinions no matter what feedback they receive from others (Kim). This can all be traced back to what consumers are being fed by the media. The public is constantly being shown size 00 models, so it is no wonder they believe they have extra weight on them they need to shred. If the media would leave their images unedited and realistic, individual's would start to feel a sense of belongingness and have unconditional positive regard, knowing that their size is acceptable.

If life-threatening illnesses are not enough to put an end to the use of Photoshop in the media, then maybe the money should do the talking. Jeremy Kees, a business professor at Villanova University in Pennsylvania, states, "Advertisers like to mess with your head." He goes on to say that the reasoning behind using thin, attractive models is to increase sales (The Ottawa Citizen). The rationale behind this theory is that by making consumers feel badly about themselves, they are more likely to buy the product so that they can be closer to appearing like the model (The Ottawa Citizen). This belief is especially common in the fashion industry, where the collective thought is that replacing size zero models with curvier ones will turn off consumers (Cowles). However, a 2012 study showed that the reality is the exact opposite, women are more willing to buy clothing modeled by someone of similar size (Cowles). Ben Barry, a modeling agent, was curious as to which models prompted women to buy certain things, so he conducted a study to find the answer. Without revealing the purpose behind the study, he showed women eight different advertisements. Some images reflected some traits they possessed, and others none at all. His results showed that women increased their intent for purchase by over two hundred percent when shown models that reflected their size (Cowles).  Further research reveals that an advertisement's content does not have nearly as much influence on consumer's intent to buy a product as their emotional response do (Murray). This is because when the advertisements placed in front of us are blatantly idealized, a conscious process is activated in the human brain and defense mechanisms are once again triggered (Styles). Because people feel as though they need to be defensive towards the models in the advertisements, they are less likely to buy the product being presented. Not only have studies revealed this fact, but companies have proven this to be true. 

In a Spring 2014 ad campaign, Aerie, a lingerie and apparel sister store to American Eagle, made the bold choice to end the use of Photoshop and any other form of retouching in their advertisements ("When this Lingerie"). Their campaigns sought to "challenge supermodel standards by featuring untouched models in their latest collection of bras, undies and apparel" (Krupnick). As of November of that same year, sales for the company had shot up nine percent ("When this Lingerie"). This completely disproves the thought that skinny sells. Instead of consumers feeling badly about themselves and buying products as a result, consumers were empowered and supported the idea of the relatable supermodel. According to an article by Adweek, "many have noted the women featured in Aerie's ads are still models, whose size and shape may not be considered average for the everyday consumer. However, the soft rolls of skin, freckles and stretch marks they proudly display are undeniably more relatable than the unattainable physique of a super model" ("When this Lingerie"). Media outlets can see these imperfections as setbacks to their company all they want, but at the end of the day the numbers do not lie. If Aerie can do it, so can they. 

Although introducing body rolls, lines, and curves to the media will not put a complete end to low self-esteem, just as donating food to food pantry will not end world hunger, it is a sizeable step in the right direction. If a change is not made in the media, these numbers are going to continue to grow. With ninety-five percent of Americans owning a television, over fifty percent of girls reading a magazine weekly, and seventy-eight percent of the United States population using a social media network, the media without a doubt has dominant power and the ability to make a change (Jade). Media outlets and companies can continue to play the blame game, or they can accept the fact that there is a large problem in our society and that they have the ability to make a large impact. Whether the media believes that skinny sells, or that they are doing nothing wrong, or whatever the reason may be, it is time they start prioritizing the well being of the people of today's society. If falsified images keep being presented, the amount of people who are suffering from self-esteem issues is going to continue to rise. The theories say it all: it is psychologically impossible for an individual to look at an altered image and gain a better understanding of self- worth as a result. It is time for the media's images to reflect the beautiful people our world consists of. It is time for the number of cases of eating disorders, depression, and anxiety to decrease. It is time for our self-image and ideal selves to harmonize in congruence. It is time for men and women to start feeling confident in their own skin. It is time to make a change. 

