Development and Initial Validity Evidence for the Height Dissatisfaction Scale

Development and Initial Validity Evidence for the Height Dissatisfaction Scale | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Development and Initial Validity Evidence for the Height Dissatisfaction Scale Stefanie Condello, Ardavan Khamisi, Annika M. Hansson, Daniel Talbot This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6798293/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Height dissatisfaction is an under-recognized dimension of body image concern that may have unique psychological correlates. Existing measures, such as the Male Body Attitudes Scale (MBAS) and the Negative Physical Self Scale-Shortness subscale (NPSS-S), are limited by gender specificity, unidirectional assumptions (i.e., desiring greater height), and a lack of items addressing sociocultural influences. Our study aimed to develop and provide validity evidence for the Height Dissatisfaction Scale (HDS), a multidimensional measure designed to assess height dissatisfaction across affective, behavioral, and cognitive domains in individuals of any height or gender. A community and undergraduate sample (N = 332; 72.9% women; M age = 24.42, SD = 10.02) completed the 14-item HDS alongside an established measures of height dissatisfaction (the NPSS-S), eating disorder symptoms, and self-esteem. Participants also reported their actual and ideal height, which was used to calculate a height difference score (ideal height minus actual height). Exploratory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure with 10 items, which was further supported by confirmatory factor analysis. The HDS demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α = .92), and correlated with the NPSS-S, eating disorder symptoms, self-esteem, as well as participants’ actual height and height difference score, supporting convergent and concurrent validity. Notably, the HDS captured both upward and downward dissatisfaction, identifying compensatory behaviors linked to height concerns (e.g., posture modification, body fat loss). However, test–retest reliability was not assessed, limiting conclusions about temporal stability. The HDS offers a psychometrically sound tool for investigating height dissatisfaction and its psychological outcomes across diverse populations. Findings highlight the need to consider height in body image research and interventions. Psychology Introduction Body dissatisfaction refers to negative subjective evaluations of one’s physical appearance and is a core component of body image concerns. It is characterized by negative preoccupation with specific body features - such as weight, shape, or muscularity - or with overall appearance, and can affect individuals across gender, age, and cultural backgrounds (Grogan, 2021 ). Research consistently shows that body dissatisfaction is highly prevalent, particularly among adolescents and young adults, with some studies reporting rates as high as 72% in community samples (Fiske et al., 2014 ). While historically viewed as more common in women, recent evidence highlights rising rates among men, especially in relation to muscularity related concerns (Murray et al., 2020 ). Importantly, body dissatisfaction is not a benign or superficial concern. It has been consistently linked to a range of negative psychological outcomes, including depressive symptoms (Bornioli et al., 2021 ), anxiety (Pritchard et al., 2021 ), low self-esteem (Jones et al., 2022 ), disordered eating behaviors (Foster et al., 2024 ), and overall reduced quality of life (Mond et al., 2013 ). These outcomes are often shaped by sociocultural influences, such as media, peer, and family pressures, that promote unrealistic body ideals and reinforce harmful appearance norms across development (Frederick et al., 2022 ). Past research has dominantly focused on body dissatisfaction relating to body fat and muscularity. Men tend to idealize a muscular physique (Groves et al., 2023 ; Talbot, 2023 ), while women have historically aspired to thinness (Warren & Akoury, 2020 ) - though recent trends show a shift toward a "slim-thick” or “fit” body ideal (McComb & Mills, 2022 ). However, height has recently emerged as another important, though less examined, dimension of body dissatisfaction. Height Dissatisfaction Height dissatisfaction refers to negative perceptions or feelings individuals have about their height, often resulting in a desire to be taller or shorter (Talbot & Mahlberg, 2024 ). Unlike weight or muscle, height is largely immutable, which can contribute to a unique form of dissatisfaction. Height ideals are socially constructed: tallness is generally preferred for men, while a moderate height is favored for women (Perkins et al., 2021 ; Yancey & Emerson, 2016 ). Height carries other cultural connotations, with taller stature being linked to perceptions of attractiveness (Pazhoohi et al., 2023 ), competence (Blaker et al., 2013 ), and dominance (Stulp et al., 2015 ), particularly for men. Ultimately, height, specifically tall stature, is closely linked to traditional notions of masculinity, often leaving shorter men feeling that they do not measure up to these masculine ideals (O’Gorman et al., 2019 ). Women, though less frequently the focus of height research and height-related social discourse, are also affected by height dissatisfaction. For women, height dissatisfaction may intersect with broader concerns about thinness and body proportion. Talbot and Mahlberg ( 2024 ) found that nearly half of women in their sample wished to change their height, with shorter women expressing higher dissatisfaction and a stronger drive for thinness. Conversely, taller women were more likely to report a drive for muscularity. This was reiterated by Perkins et al. ( 2021 ), who found that shorter women reported both greater height dissatisfaction and greater perceived experiences of heightism. Thus, the small pool of research that has accrued to date reflects that height dissatisfaction in men centers around beliefs that one is "too short" (Griffiths et al., 2017 ; O'Gorman et al., 2020 ), while for women it can arise from being either "too tall" or "too short" (Perkins et al., 2021 ; Talbot & Mahlberg, 2024 ). These findings suggest that height dissatisfaction in women may reflect broader sociocultural pressures to maintain a delicate balance between appearing feminine and fitting societal norms. Height Dissatisfaction and Psychological Outcomes Height dissatisfaction is linked to several negative psychological outcomes. In relation to men, Griffiths et al. ( 2017 ) found that 62% of sexual minority men wished to be taller, with shorter men experiencing more height dissatisfaction, greater instances of negative treatment and height-based discrimination, and poorer quality of life. O’Gorman et al. ( 2019 ) found that greater height dissatisfaction is linked to greater muscle dissatisfaction and conformity to masculine norms. Wang et al. ( 2022 ) found that men that were dissatisfied with shortness had greater general body image concern, greater dissatisfaction with body fat and muscularity, and greater eating disorder symptoms. Similarly, Talbot and Mahlberg ( 2023 ) demonstrated that men with greater height dissatisfaction endorsed a greater drive for muscularity and more cognitive and behavioral eating disorder symptoms. In women, Perkins et al. ( 2021 ) found an association between greater height dissatisfaction and poorer quality of life. Talbot and Mahlberg ( 2024 ) found that greater height dissatisfaction was associated with greater drive for thinness and muscularity, and eating disorder symptoms. Amin et al. ( 2024 ) found that dissatisfaction with shortness was associated with greater general body image concern, and weight concern. In an earlier study utilizing a clinical sample of women with eating disorders, Favaro et al. ( 2007 ) found a connection between short stature and increased risk of eating disorders, although the direction of causality remains unclear - for instance, poor nutrition associated with disordered eating could contribute to shorter adult height, rather than short stature increasing the risk of developing an eating disorder Existing Measures of Height Dissatisfaction Research into height dissatisfaction has largely relied on scales developed to assess broader dimensions of body image, with only limited focus on height-specific concerns. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, only two published scales include multi-item subscales specifically assessing height dissatisfaction: the Male Body Attitudes Scale (MBAS) (Tylka et al., 2005 ) and the Negative Physical Self Scale (NPSS) (Chen et al., 2006 ). However, there are significant limitations in both scales, which are discussed below. Male Body Attitudes Scale (MBAS) The MBAS, developed by Tylka et al. ( 2005 ), is a 24-item instrument designed to assess men’s attitudes toward muscularity, body fat, and height. Height dissatisfaction is measured through just two items: “I am satisfied with my height” and “I wish I was taller.” Although the MBAS has utility, it was designed for men, and dominantly validated using male samples, raising questions about its appropriateness for assessing height dissatisfaction in women. Additionally, the height subscale is limited in its unidirectionality, as it assumes dissatisfaction only in the direction of wanting to be taller. For instance, taller individuals may be dissatisfied with their height but wish to be shorter - an experience not captured by the current items. Tylka et al. ( 2005 ) suggested discarding the “I wish I was taller” item in such cases. However, with only one remaining item (“I am satisfied with my height”), the psychometric robustness of the measure may be compromised (Allen et al., 2022 ). Other researchers have opted to use the two items as separate measures as they found they were uncorrelated and thus, argued that they appear to measure to distinct psychological constructs (Kozłowska et al., 2023 ; Talbot & Jonason, 2025 ). The MBAS has also been critiqued for its wording clarity. Ryan et al. ( 2011 ) revised the scale (MBAS-R), adding new items such as “I feel ashamed about my height.” Although this revision aimed to improve attitudinal assessment, it added only two height-related items (and retained only one). Ultimately, the MBAS may lack the nuance needed to effectively measure height dissatisfaction, including a greater number of items assessing cognitive, affective, and behavioral factors that may relate to height dissatisfaction. Negative Physical Self Scale (NPSS) The NPSS, developed by Chen et al. ( 2006 ), offers a more comprehensive approach, with 48 items assessing concerns about weight, height, and appearance in Chinese adolescents, including 11 comprising the height dissatisfaction subscale (the NPSS-S). The NPSS-S addresses both the psychological impact of short stature and potential related compensatory behaviors (e.g., “I have tried to find ways to grow taller”). Findings using this scale show that shorter participants report greater body image distress, particularly in cultural contexts where height is linked to social and professional success. Despite its broader coverage, the NPSS is also limited by a unidirectional focus on short stature, neglecting the experiences of taller individuals who may wish to be shorter (the subscale itself is titled the “Shortness” subscale). This is evident in the wording of several items. For instance, the item “The fact that I am short makes me very unhappy” assumes the respondent perceives themselves to be of shorter stature. There is also a redundancy issue across two items, (“I have tried to find ways to grow taller” and “I keep trying ways to get taller”) that seemingly asking respondents to reflect on the same construct. Aims: Development and initial validation of new Height Dissatisfaction Scale (HDS) Existing measures fall short in capturing the full scope of height dissatisfaction, particularly its attitudinal, behavioral, and psychological dimensions. Our study aimed to address these gaps by developing the Height Dissatisfaction Scale (HDS), a novel measure designed to assess attitudes, behaviors, and emotional responses associated with height dissatisfaction. Importantly, the HDS was designed to measure height dissatisfaction, irrespective of direction (i.e., the want to be taller or shorter), and assess for a range of related cognitive, affective, and behavioral factors that may relate to height dissatisfaction. Additionally, our study aimed to provide validity and reliability evidence for the HDS, and explore sex differences in associations between the HDS, height, and related psychopathological factors. Methods Participants and Procedure Data were collected as part of a larger investigation exploring height dissatisfaction, body image, and the influence of social media. Our final sample comprised 332 participants, including Australian undergraduate psychology students (recruited through university Sona Systems) and members of the public recruited through social media and word-of-mouth. Participants were aged between 18 and 65 years ( M = 24.42, SD = 10.02), with an average self-reported height of 169.77 cm ( SD = 9.84). The sample consisted of 242 women (72.89%) and 90 men (27.11%), who dominantly identified as heterosexual (74.70%), followed by bisexual (13.55%), homosexual (4.22%), and other sexuality (3.31%), with 4.22% of participants not reporting their sexuality. Most participants identified as Australian (47.5%), followed by European (21%), South-East Asian (8%), Middle Eastern (6.8%), East Asian (6.2%), South Asian (4.3%), Latin American/Hispanic (4.3%), Pacific Islander (0.6%), African (0.6%), and Other (0.6%). Participants accessed the study via an online Qualtrics survey. Prior to participation, they were presented with an information sheet and provided informed consent. Two attention-check items were embedded in the survey to ensure data quality. Participants who failed either check, answered with unrealistic responses (e.g., height reported as 1567cm), and/or submitted incomplete responses were excluded from analysis, resulting in the removal of 108 individuals from an initial sample of 440. To reduce potential order effects, survey items were presented in randomized order. Psychology students received course credit, whereas community participants were not offered compensation. Ethical clearance for the study was obtained from the [University Name] Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval No. G–35–2024). A debriefing statement was provided at the end of the survey. Measures Height Dissatisfaction Scale (HDS) We developed the HDS to address the limitations of existing measures by capturing a broader and more nuanced understanding of the attitudes and behaviors associated with height-related body dissatisfaction. The initial scale comprised 14 items (see Table 1 ) rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ), with higher scores reflecting greater height dissatisfaction. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for the Initial items of the Height Dissatisfaction Scale (n = 332) Item Number Domain Item Mean SD Range 1 C I wish my height was different than what it is (i.e. taller or shorter) 3.33 1.56 1–6 2 C I feel satisfied with my height* 2.61 1.32 1–6 3 A I feel insecure about my height 2.29 1.34 1–6 4 C I think my height negatively affects my attractiveness 2.39 1.39 1–6 5 B I avoid situations where my height might be noticeable 1.84 1.19 1–6 6 B I wear shoes that make me appear taller 2.44 1.55 1–6 7 B I slouch or avoid standing straight to appear shorter 1.86 1.22 1–6 8 B I have considered or undergone medical procedures to change my height 1.23 0.72 1–6 9 B I try to lose body fat to compensate for my height 2.73 1.71 1–6 10 B I try to gain muscle mass/enhance muscle tone to compensate for my height 2.49 1.61 1–6 11 C I often compare my height to others 3.00 1.62 1–6 12 C I think my height makes me less competitive in romantic settings 2.51 1.48 1–6 13 A My height negatively affects my self-esteem 2.15 1.33 1–6 14 C I feel that my height influences how others perceive and treat me 2.72 1.56 1–6 Note. *Item 2 is reverse-coded. C = Cognitive domain; A = Affective domain; B = Behavioral domain Based on prior height dissatisfaction scales (i.e., the MBAS and NPSS-S) and theoretical models of body dissatisfaction and eating disorders such including the Tripartite Influence Model (Tylka, 2011 ; Van den Berg et al., 2002 ), Cognitive-Behavioral Model of Eating Disorders (Fairburn et al., 2003 ). Items were designed to assess four key domains: (i) attitudes toward height, (ii) height-related behaviors, (iii) perceptions and social comparisons, and (iv) psychological impact. Guided by the psychometric principles outlined by Boateng et al. (2018), the scale aimed to comprehensively capture both the internal and external influences on height dissatisfaction. To reflect the role of social comparison, items such as “I often compare my height to others” and “I think my height makes me less competitive in romantic settings” were included. In contrast to previous unidirectional scales, the HDS adopts a multidirectional approach, incorporating both upward and downward height dissatisfaction. For example, items such as “I wear shoes that make me appear taller” and “I slouch or avoid standing straight to appear shorter” reflect desires to appear taller or shorter, respectively. The scale also includes items that address compensatory behaviors, including “I try to lose body fat to compensate for my height” and “I have considered or undergone medical procedures to change my height.” Together, these items enable the HDS to capture diverse expressions of height dissatisfaction, offering a more comprehensive tool for understanding this understudied form of body image concern. Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire Short (EDEQ-S) The EDEQ-S (Gideon et al., 2016) is a 12-item self-report measure derived from the original 28-item Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (Fairburn & Beglin, 2008 ). The EDEQ-S assesses core eating disorder behaviors and attitudes over the past 7 days, for instance “Have you gone for long periods (e.g., 8 or more waking hours) without eating anything at all to influence your weight or shape?”. Items are rated on a 4-point scale from 0 ( no days ) to 4 ( every day ), with higher scores indicating greater disordered eating behaviors. The EDEQ-S has demonstrated strong reliability and validity in clinical and non-clinical populations (Cronbach’s α = .913 in Gideon et al., 2016, and α = .91 in the current study). Negative Physical Self Scale - Shortness Subscale (NPSS-S) Participants completed the NPSS-S, derived from the original Negative Physical Self Scale (Chen et al., 2006 ). The Shortness subscale measures negative attitudes toward one’s height, specifically short stature. It contains 11 items, rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 0 ( never ) to 5 ( always ), with higher scores indicating greater dissatisfaction with being short. Items in the NPSS-S range from behavioral; “I have used exercises to increase my height” to attitudinal; “I think I am too short”. This subscale has been used to assess height-related body image concerns in diverse populations and has shown good reliability (α = .88, Chen et al., 2006 , and α = .91 in the current study). Brief Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (B-RSES) Self-esteem was assessed using the B-RSES (Monteiro et al., 2021), a 5-item Likert-type measure derived from the original 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). Items were rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), utilizing items such as “All in all, I am inclined to think that I am a failure” (reverse-scored). Higher average scores indicate greater self-esteem. In the present sample, the B-RSES demonstrated strong internal consistency reliability (α = .86). Statistical Analyses All statistical analyses were conducted using Jamovi (Version 2.6.19). Descriptive statistics were computed for all variables, and internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. To evaluate the underlying structure of the HDS, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was first performed using the minimum residual (MINRES) extraction method with oblique (Oblimin) rotation, allowing for correlated factors. Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure were used to determine the suitability of the data for factor analysis. Items with low loadings ( .70), or problematic cross-loadings were considered for removal in iterative refinements of the model. Following the EFA, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using structural equation modelling (SEM) to test the fit of the proposed unidimensional model. Model fit was evaluated using the chi-square test, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) with its 90% confidence interval. Conventional criteria were used to interpret model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999 ; Kenny et al., 2015 ). Internal consistency reliability of the final HDS was examined using Cronbach’s alpha. Convergent and concurrent validity were assessed using Spearman’s rho correlations due to non-normal distributions in key variables. Correlations were computed between HDS scores and relevant constructs, including actual height, ideal height, eating disorder symptoms (EDEQ-S), self-esteem (B-RSES), and narcissistic perfectionism (NPSS-S). To assess gender invariance in correlations, Fisher’s r -to- z transformations were applied to test for significant differences in correlation strength between men and women (Meng et al., 1992 ). Results Descriptive statistics for the 14 HDS items are presented in Table 1 . Item means ranged from 1.23 (Item 8) to 3.33 (Item 1), with standard deviations between 0.72 and 1.71, indicating variability in responses across items. All items were rated on a 6-point Likert scale, with observed response ranges spanning the full scale (1 to 6) for each item, suggesting participants utilized the entire response spectrum. Exploratory Factor Analysis An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on the initial 14-item Height Dissatisfaction Scale using a minimum residual extraction method combined with an Oblimin rotation to allow for correlated factors. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant, χ²(91) = 2536.80, p < .01, indicating sufficient correlations among items for factor analysis. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) was excellent, MSA = 0.92, with all individual items demonstrating adequate sampling adequacy (MSA range = 0.73–0.95). Initial EFA results revealed a three-factor solution; however, some items (notably Items 6 and 8) demonstrated low loadings and high uniqueness values (> .70), suggesting poor representation within the factor structure. Item 7 was also removed due to suboptimal loading and cross-loading issues. Upon reanalysis excluding these items, the solution yielded a more interpretable factor structure, yet Item 10 displayed an anomalous factor loading of 1.00 with zero uniqueness, indicating near-perfect collinearity with Item 9. Consequently, Item 10 was removed to improve model stability. The final EFA on the remaining 10 items (Table 2 ) suggested a unidimensional structure, with all factor loadings above .51 and uniqueness values ranging from .16 to .74. This single factor accounted for a substantial portion of the variance, reflecting a coherent latent construct of height dissatisfaction. The retained items loaded strongly on the factor, supporting the scale’s internal consistency and construct validity. Table 2 Exploratory Factor Analysis Factor Loadings and Uniqueness Values for the Height Dissatisfaction Scale (10-item solution) Item Factor 1 Uniqueness 1. I wish my height was different than what it is 0.72 0.48 2. I feel satisfied with my height* 0.65 0.58 3. I feel insecure about my height 0.87 0.25 4. I think my height negatively affects my attractiveness 0.85 0.28 5. I avoid situations where my height might be noticeable 0.73 0.47 9. I try to lose body fat to compensate for my height 0.51 0.74 11. I often compare my height to others 0.77 0.41 12. I think my height makes me less competitive in romantic settings 0.72 0.48 13. My height negatively affects my self-esteem 0.92 0.16 14. I feel that my height influences how others perceive and treat me 0.64 0.60 *Note: Item 2 is reverse-coded. Minimum residual extraction and Oblimin rotation were used. Loadings ≥ .30 were considered meaningful (Hair et al., 2010 ). Confirmatory Factor Analysis A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to evaluate the factorial validity of the HDS. The model included 10 indicators loading onto a single latent factor. The chi-square test indicated a significant discrepancy between the model and the data, χ²(35) = 108.43, p < .001, suggesting some misfit. However, chi-square is sensitive to sample size, so additional fit indices were examined (Bentler & Bonett, 1980 ). Fit indices indicated an acceptable overall fit: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.96 and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.95, both exceeding the conventional cutoff of 0.90 for good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999 ). The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was 0.08 with a 90% confidence interval ranging from 0.06 to 0.10, reflecting a reasonable error of approximation (Kenny et al., 2015 ). All factor loadings were statistically significant ( p < .001) and ranged from 0.85 to 1.23, demonstrating strong indicator contributions to the latent factor (see Table 3 ). Table 3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Standardized Factor Loadings for the Height Dissatisfaction Scale Item Estimate SE Z 1. I wish my height was different than what it is 1.1 0.08 14.6* 2. I feel satisfied with my height* 0.89 0.07 12.93* 3. I feel insecure about my height 1.18 0.06 20.09* 4. I think my height negatively affects my attractiveness 1.18 0.06 19.08* 5. I avoid situations where my height might be noticeable 0.89 0.06 15.69* 9. I try to lose body fat to compensate for my height 0.85 0.09 9.45* 11. I often compare my height to others 1.23 0.08 16.07* 12. I think my height makes me less competitive in romantic settings 1.06 0.07 14.94* 13. My height negatively affects my self-esteem 1.22 0.06 21.72* 14. I feel that my height influences how others perceive and treat me 0.99 0.08 12.68* Note. Factor loadings, standard errors (SE), and Z-values, are presented for each item loading on the single latent factor. * p < .001. Reliability To examine internal consistency reliability, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for the 10-item HDS. The scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s α of .92, indicating that the items reliably measured a single underlying construct. Convergent and Concurrent Validity To examine convergent validity, we conducted a series of correlations between the HDS and actual height, ideal height, the EDEQ-S, and the B-RSES. Due to violations of normality in the HDS ( W = .94, p < .001), ideal height ( W = .55, p = < .001), and the EDEQ-S ( W = .93, p < .001) we used non-parametric Spearman’s correlation analyses. We found that the HDS significantly negatively correlated with actual height ( r s = − .16, p < .01), and positively correlated with the ideal-actual height difference score ( r s = .35, p < .001). Further, the HDS was positively correlated with the EDEQ-S ( r s ​ = .29, p < .001) and negatively correlated with the B-RSES ( r s ​ = − .32, p < .001). To examine concurrent validity, we examined the correlation between the HDS and the NPSS-S, finding that the two were highly positively correlated ( r s ​ = .74, p < .001). Sex Comparison of HDS Correlational Analysis Correlational analyses were conducted separately for men and women. Overall, the pattern of associations with the HDS were consistent across sexes (Table 4 ). However, the correlation between HDS and perceived height discrepancy was significantly stronger for men than women, z = 3.17, p < .01. Table 4 Correlations Between the HDS and Related Variables by Sex HDS Men ( n = 90) Women ( n = 242) z Height − .34** − .15* -1.62 Height Difference .58** .26** 3.17** NPSS-S .78** .68** 1.73 EDEQ-S .38** .26** 1.07 B-RSES − .36** − .29** -0.63 Note: z is Fisher’s z that was calculated online ( http://quantpsy.org/corrtest/corrtest.htm ). HDS = Height Dissatisfaction Scale; NPSS-S =; EDEQ-S = Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire - Short; B-RSES = Brief Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. * p < .05; ** p < .01. Discussion Our study introduced and provided preliminary validation evidence for the Height Dissatisfaction Scale (HDS), a novel 10-item measure designed to assess a multidimensional construct of height dissatisfaction. In contrast to prior instruments that assessed height dissatisfaction in a limited and/or unidirectional manner (Chen et al., 2006 ; Tylka et al., 2005 ), the HDS captures cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions of height dissatisfaction across both directions of discontent - desiring to be either taller or shorter. Further, our findings offer promising support for the reliability and validity of the HDS. Validity and Reliability Evidence The psychometric evaluation of the HDS demonstrated strong internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha exceeding conventional thresholds for new scales (α > .80) (Kline, 2015 ). Exploratory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure, indicating that the scale items coherently reflect a single latent construct of height dissatisfaction. Importantly, the HDS also showed good convergent validity. As expected, HDS scores were significantly negatively correlated with actual height, suggesting that shorter individuals reported greater height dissatisfaction (Griffiths et al., 2017 ; Talbot & Mahlberg, 2024 ). Height dissatisfaction was also positively associated with the discrepancy between ideal and actual height, supporting the notion that greater divergence from one's desired height is linked to higher dissatisfaction. Additionally, higher HDS scores were moderately associated with greater eating pathology (Foster et al., 2024 ) and lower self-esteem (Jones et al., 2022 ), consistent with the broader literature on body dissatisfaction. To examine concurrent validity, we found a strong positive correlation between the HDS and the NPSS-S, indicating that the HDS aligns closely with an established measure of height dissatisfaction (or specifically, dissatisfaction with short stature). These results collectively support the construct validity of the HDS. The scale also demonstrated content validity through item development grounded in theory and empirical evidence. Items were informed by the Tripartite Influence Model and designed to assess sociocultural influences, including social comparison, internalization of height ideals, and compensatory behaviors (Tylka, 2011 ; Van den Berg et al., 2002 ). This supports the assertion that the HDS assesses not just dissatisfaction per se, but also its affective, behavioral, and social-cognitive correlates. Strengths of the HDS One of the key strengths of the Height Dissatisfaction Scale (HDS) is its ability to assess dissatisfaction in both directions—wishing to be taller or shorter. This bidirectional approach offers a more comprehensive assessment of height dissatisfaction than previous, predominantly male-focused measures that typically emphasize a desire to be taller. By capturing dissatisfaction with being either too short or too tall, the HDS is particularly well-suited to reflect the range of height-related concerns. Our scale also addresses a critical limitation of previous tools by incorporating items related to compensatory behaviors, such as appearance modification, body composition change, and medical intervention. This expands the utility of the scale beyond mere attitudinal assessment and allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the behavioral manifestations of height dissatisfaction. Limitations and Future Directions Despite these strengths, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, while the sample showed some diversity in participants’ ethnicity, and sexuality, it was predominantly composed of Australian university students, which may limit the generalizability of findings. Future research should seek to validate the HDS in more demographically representative and cross-cultural samples to determine its broader applicability. Second, the study utilized a cross-sectional design, which limits inferences about causality. Although we observed associations between height dissatisfaction and eating disorder symptoms, longitudinal research is needed to establish the directionality and temporal stability of these relationships. It remains unclear, for example, whether height dissatisfaction precedes disordered eating or if pre-existing body image concerns contribute to heightened dissatisfaction with height. Third, although preliminary factor analyses suggested a unidimensional structure, it is possible that more nuanced subfactors exist (e.g., upward vs. downward dissatisfaction, attitudinal vs. behavioral components). Future research using larger samples should explore the factorial complexity of the HDS via confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory to refine the scale and establish measurement invariance across gender and cultural groups. Additionally, While the HDS demonstrated strong internal consistency and promising construct validity, a key psychometric limitation is the absence of test-retest reliability data. Future research should examine the temporal stability of the HDS using an appropriate retest interval to further support its reliability and interpretability in both clinical and research settings. Conclusion In sum, the present study introduces a psychometrically sound and theoretically informed measure of height dissatisfaction. The HDS represents an important advancement in the assessment of body image concerns, providing a comprehensive tool that captures a broad range of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components of height dissatisfaction. By addressing key limitations of previous measures and offering strong preliminary evidence of reliability and validity, the HDS opens new pathways for research and clinical practice aimed at understanding and reducing height-related body image distress. Declarations Data Availability Statement The data and materials for this study are available on the Open Science Framework (OSF) at: [link to be inserted after peer review]. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Funding Statement This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Supplementary Materials Supplementary materials, including the Height Dissatisfaction Scale (HDS) and scoring instructions, are available in the OSF repository linked above. References Allen, M. S., Iliescu, D., & Greiff, S. (2022). Single item measures in psychological science. In: Hogrefe Publishing. Amin, S., Ly, M., Misener, K., Brown, N., & Libben, M. (2024). Validation of the translated Negative Physical Self Scale in a sample of Asian women living in Canada. PloS one , 19 (5), e0301184. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological bulletin , 88 (3), 588. Blaker, N. M., Rompa, I., Dessing, I. H., Vriend, A. F., Herschberg, C., & Van Vugt, M. (2013). The height leadership advantage in men and women: Testing evolutionary psychology predictions about the perceptions of tall leaders. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 16 (1), 17-27. Bornioli, A., Lewis-Smith, H., Slater, A., & Bray, I. (2021). Body dissatisfaction predicts the onset of depression among adolescent females and males: a prospective study. J Epidemiol Community Health , 75 (4), 343-348. Chen, H., Jackson, T., & Huang, X. (2006). The Negative Physical Self Scale: Initial development and validation in samples of Chinese adolescents and young adults. Body Image , 3 (4), 401-412. Fairburn, C. G., & Beglin, S. J. (2008). Eating disorder examination questionnaire. Cognitive behavior therapy and eating disorders , 309 , 313. Fairburn, C. G., Cooper, Z., & Shafran, R. (2003). Cognitive behaviour therapy for eating disorders: A “transdiagnostic” theory and treatment. Behaviour research and therapy , 41 (5), 509-528. Favaro, A., Tenconi, E., Degortes, D., Soave, M., Zanetti, T., Nardi, M. T., Caregaro, L., & Santonastaso, P. (2007). Association between low height and eating disorders: cause or effect? International Journal of Eating Disorders , 40 (6), 549-553. Fiske, L., Fallon, E. A., Blissmer, B., & Redding, C. A. (2014). Prevalence of body dissatisfaction among United States adults: Review and recommendations for future research. Eating behaviors , 15 (3), 357-365. Foster, L., Lundh, L. G., & Daukantaité, D. (2024). Disordered eating in a 10‐year perspective from adolescence to young adulthood: Stability, change, and body dissatisfaction as a predictor. Scandinavian journal of psychology , 65 (1), 32-41. Frederick, D. A., Pila, E., Malcarne, V. L., Compte, E. J., Nagata, J. M., Best, C. R., Cook-Cottone, C. P., Brown, T. A., Convertino, L., & Crerand, C. E. (2022). Demographic predictors of objectification theory and tripartite influence model constructs: The US Body Project I. Body Image , 40 , 182-199. Griffiths, S., Murray, S. B., Medeiros, A., & Blashill, A. J. (2017). The tall and the short of it: An investigation of height ideals, height preferences, height dissatisfaction, heightism, and height-related quality of life impairment among sexual minority men. Body Image , 23 , 146-154. Grogan, S. (2021). Body image: Understanding body dissatisfaction in men, women and children . Routledge. Groves, V., Ridley, B. J., Cornelissen, P. L., Maalin, N., Mohamed, S., Kramer, R. S., McCarty, K., Tovée, M. J., & Cornelissen, K. K. (2023). Men's perception of current and ideal body composition and the influence of media internalization on body judgements. Frontiers in Psychology , 14 , 1116686. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. In Multivariate data analysis (pp. 785-785). Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal , 6 (1), 1-55. Jones, H., McIntosh, V. V., Britt, E., Carter, J. D., Jordan, J., & Bulik, C. M. (2022). The effect of temperament and character on body dissatisfaction in women with bulimia nervosa: The role of low self‐esteem and depression. European Eating Disorders Review , 30 (4), 388-400. Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological methods & research , 44 (3), 486-507. Kline, P. (2015). A handbook of test construction (psychology revivals): introduction to psychometric design . Routledge. Kozłowska, M. A., Talbot, D., & Jonason, P. K. (2023). The Napoleon complex, revisited: Those high on the Dark Triad traits are dissatisfied with their height and are short. Personality and Individual Differences , 203 , 111990. McComb, S. E., & Mills, J. S. (2022). Eating and body image characteristics of those who aspire to the slim-thick, thin, or fit ideal and their impact on state body image. Body Image , 42 , 375-384. Meng, X.-L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological bulletin , 111 (1), 172. Mond, J., Mitchison, D., Latner, J., Hay, P., Owen, C., & Rodgers, B. (2013). Quality of life impairment associated with body dissatisfaction in a general population sample of women. BMC Public Health , 13 , 1-11. Murray, S. B., Brown, T. A., Lavender, J. M., Nagata, J. M., & Keel, P. K. (2020). The evolving nature of weight dissatisfaction and eating behaviors among men: Secular trends among college men across four decades. Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 129 (8), 824. O'Gorman, B., Sheffield, J., Anderson, L. E., & Griffiths, S. (2020). Trivialized and overlooked: A qualitative investigation of men recruited from an Internet-based forum for short-statured individuals. Psychology of Men & Masculinities , 21 (2), 288. O’Gorman, B., Sheffield, J., & Griffiths, S. (2019). Does masculinity moderate the relationship of height with height dissatisfaction? Findings from an Internet forum for short statured men. Body Image , 31 , 112-119. Pazhoohi, F., Garza, R., & Kingstone, A. (2023). The interacting effects of height and shoulder-to-hip ratio on perceptions of attractiveness, masculinity, and fighting ability: Experimental design and ecological validity considerations. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 52 (1), 301-314. Perkins, T., Hayes, S., & Talbot, D. (2021). Shorter women are more dissatisfied with their height: An exploration of height dissatisfaction in Australian women. Obesities , 1 (3), 189-199. Pritchard, M., Brasil, K., McDermott, R., & Holdiman, A. (2021). Untangling the associations between generalized anxiety and body dissatisfaction: The mediating effects of social physique anxiety among collegiate men and women. Body Image , 39 , 266-275. Ryan, T. A., Morrison, T. G., Roddy, S., & McCutcheon, J. (2011). Psychometric properties of the revised male body attitudes scale among Irish men. Body Image , 8 (1), 64-69. Stulp, G., Buunk, A. P., Verhulst, S., & Pollet, T. V. (2015). Human height is positively related to interpersonal dominance in dyadic interactions. PloS one , 10 (2), e0117860. Talbot, D. (2023). Beyond Desirable in North America: an examination of actual and ideal body preferences, and body attractiveness preferences in a heterosexual sample of men and women from the USA. Discover Psychology , 3 (1), 42. Talbot, D., & Jonason, P. K. (2025). Intrasexual envy, jealousy, and competitiveness are associated with height and height dissatisfaction. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences . Talbot, D., & Mahlberg, J. (2023). Exploration of height dissatisfaction, muscle dissatisfaction, body ideals, and eating disorder symptoms in men. Journal of American College Health , 71 (1), 18-23. Talbot, D., & Mahlberg, J. (2024). An examination of the relationship between height, height dissatisfaction, drive for thinness and muscularity, and eating disorder symptoms in north American women. Current Psychology , 43 (29), 24346-24354. Tylka, T. L. (2011). Refinement of the tripartite influence model for men: Dual body image pathways to body change behaviors. Body Image , 8 (3), 199-207. Tylka, T. L., Bergeron, D., & Schwartz, J. P. (2005). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Male Body Attitudes Scale (MBAS). Body Image , 2 (2), 161-175. Van den Berg, P., Thompson, J. K., Obremski-Brandon, K., & Coovert, M. (2002). The tripartite influence model of body image and eating disturbance: A covariance structure modeling investigation testing the mediational role of appearance comparison. Journal of psychosomatic research , 53 (5), 1007-1020. Wang, Y.-H., Wang, Y.-L., Ly, M., Nichol, M., Misener, K., & Libben, M. (2022). Factorial validity, reliability, and measurement invariance of the Negative Physical Self Scale in a sample of men residing in North America. Psychological Assessment , 34 (11), 1036. Warren, C. S., & Akoury, L. M. (2020). Emphasizing the “cultural” in sociocultural: A systematic review of research on thin-ideal internalization, acculturation, and eating pathology in US ethnic minorities. Psychology research and behavior management , 319-330. Yancey, G., & Emerson, M. O. (2016). Does height matter? An examination of height preferences in romantic coupling. Journal of Family Issues , 37 (1), 53-73. Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6798293","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":464946764,"identity":"ebefd68c-a9f6-4825-9e3c-0bd6230b8bc6","order_by":0,"name":"Stefanie Condello","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Technology Sydney","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Stefanie","middleName":"","lastName":"Condello","suffix":""},{"id":464946765,"identity":"be1cde34-a1a9-434a-b520-7244984fa15b","order_by":1,"name":"Ardavan Khamisi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Technology Sydney","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ardavan","middleName":"","lastName":"Khamisi","suffix":""},{"id":464946766,"identity":"06bc57bd-5efd-44a0-bcb6-a62f342915ca","order_by":2,"name":"Annika M. Hansson","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Technology Sydney","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Annika","middleName":"M.","lastName":"Hansson","suffix":""},{"id":464946650,"identity":"75de6659-bcec-480c-9566-95851b97f3b9","order_by":3,"name":"Daniel Talbot","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5505-4474","institution":"Australian Catholic University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Daniel","middleName":"","lastName":"Talbot","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-02 02:45:24","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6798293/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6798293/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":83821496,"identity":"45a9e657-c967-4d9f-bdff-b3f0891f9293","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-03 09:04:36","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":933341,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6798293/v1/22afc11b-36c5-49f0-bd5c-20df38f434d1.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDevelopment and Initial Validity Evidence for the Height Dissatisfaction Scale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eBody dissatisfaction refers to negative subjective evaluations of one\u0026rsquo;s physical appearance and is a core component of body image concerns. It is characterized by negative preoccupation with specific body features - such as weight, shape, or muscularity - or with overall appearance, and can affect individuals across gender, age, and cultural backgrounds (Grogan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Research consistently shows that body dissatisfaction is highly prevalent, particularly among adolescents and young adults, with some studies reporting rates as high as 72% in community samples (Fiske et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). While historically viewed as more common in women, recent evidence highlights rising rates among men, especially in relation to muscularity related concerns (Murray et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportantly, body dissatisfaction is not a benign or superficial concern. It has been consistently linked to a range of negative psychological outcomes, including depressive symptoms (Bornioli et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), anxiety (Pritchard et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), low self-esteem (Jones et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), disordered eating behaviors (Foster et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), and overall reduced quality of life (Mond et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). These outcomes are often shaped by sociocultural influences, such as media, peer, and family pressures, that promote unrealistic body ideals and reinforce harmful appearance norms across development (Frederick et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePast research has dominantly focused on body dissatisfaction relating to body fat and muscularity. Men tend to idealize a muscular physique (Groves et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Talbot, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), while women have historically aspired to thinness (Warren \u0026amp; Akoury, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) - though recent trends show a shift toward a \"slim-thick\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;fit\u0026rdquo; body ideal (McComb \u0026amp; Mills, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). However, height has recently emerged as another important, though less examined, dimension of body dissatisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eHeight Dissatisfaction\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHeight dissatisfaction refers to negative perceptions or feelings individuals have about their height, often resulting in a desire to be taller or shorter (Talbot \u0026amp; Mahlberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Unlike weight or muscle, height is largely immutable, which can contribute to a unique form of dissatisfaction. Height ideals are socially constructed: tallness is generally preferred for men, while a moderate height is favored for women (Perkins et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Yancey \u0026amp; Emerson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Height carries other cultural connotations, with taller stature being linked to perceptions of attractiveness (Pazhoohi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), competence (Blaker et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), and dominance (Stulp et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), particularly for men. Ultimately, height, specifically tall stature, is closely linked to traditional notions of masculinity, often leaving shorter men feeling that they do not measure up to these masculine ideals (O\u0026rsquo;Gorman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWomen, though less frequently the focus of height research and height-related social discourse, are also affected by height dissatisfaction. For women, height dissatisfaction may intersect with broader concerns about thinness and body proportion. Talbot and Mahlberg (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) found that nearly half of women in their sample wished to change their height, with shorter women expressing higher dissatisfaction and a stronger drive for thinness. Conversely, taller women were more likely to report a drive for muscularity. This was reiterated by Perkins et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), who found that shorter women reported both greater height dissatisfaction and greater perceived experiences of heightism. Thus, the small pool of research that has accrued to date reflects that height dissatisfaction in men centers around beliefs that one is \"too short\" (Griffiths et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; O'Gorman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), while for women it can arise from being either \"too tall\" or \"too short\" (Perkins et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Talbot \u0026amp; Mahlberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). These findings suggest that height dissatisfaction in women may reflect broader sociocultural pressures to maintain a delicate balance between appearing feminine and fitting societal norms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eHeight Dissatisfaction and Psychological Outcomes\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eHeight dissatisfaction is linked to several negative psychological outcomes. In relation to men, Griffiths et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) found that 62% of sexual minority men wished to be taller, with shorter men experiencing more height dissatisfaction, greater instances of negative treatment and height-based discrimination, and poorer quality of life. O\u0026rsquo;Gorman et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) found that greater height dissatisfaction is linked to greater muscle dissatisfaction and conformity to masculine norms. Wang et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) found that men that were dissatisfied with shortness had greater general body image concern, greater dissatisfaction with body fat and muscularity, and greater eating disorder symptoms. Similarly, Talbot and Mahlberg (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrated that men with greater height dissatisfaction endorsed a greater drive for muscularity and more cognitive and behavioral eating disorder symptoms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn women, Perkins et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) found an association between greater height dissatisfaction and poorer quality of life. Talbot and Mahlberg (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) found that greater height dissatisfaction was associated with greater drive for thinness and muscularity, and eating disorder symptoms. Amin et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) found that dissatisfaction with shortness was associated with greater general body image concern, and weight concern. In an earlier study utilizing a clinical sample of women with eating disorders, Favaro et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) found a connection between short stature and increased risk of eating disorders, although the direction of causality remains unclear - for instance, poor nutrition associated with disordered eating could contribute to shorter adult height, rather than short stature increasing the risk of developing an eating disorder\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eExisting Measures of Height Dissatisfaction\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch into height dissatisfaction has largely relied on scales developed to assess broader dimensions of body image, with only limited focus on height-specific concerns. To the best of the authors\u0026rsquo; knowledge, only two published scales include multi-item subscales specifically assessing height dissatisfaction: the Male Body Attitudes Scale (MBAS) (Tylka et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) and the Negative Physical Self Scale (NPSS) (Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). However, there are significant limitations in both scales, which are discussed below.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMale Body Attitudes Scale (MBAS)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe MBAS, developed by Tylka et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), is a 24-item instrument designed to assess men\u0026rsquo;s attitudes toward muscularity, body fat, and height. Height dissatisfaction is measured through just two items: \u0026ldquo;I am satisfied with my height\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;I wish I was taller.\u0026rdquo; Although the MBAS has utility, it was designed for men, and dominantly validated using male samples, raising questions about its appropriateness for assessing height dissatisfaction in women. Additionally, the height subscale is limited in its unidirectionality, as it assumes dissatisfaction only in the direction of wanting to be taller. For instance, taller individuals may be dissatisfied with their height but wish to be shorter - an experience not captured by the current items. Tylka et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) suggested discarding the \u0026ldquo;I wish I was taller\u0026rdquo; item in such cases. However, with only one remaining item (\u0026ldquo;I am satisfied with my height\u0026rdquo;), the psychometric robustness of the measure may be compromised (Allen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Other researchers have opted to use the two items as separate measures as they found they were uncorrelated and thus, argued that they appear to measure to distinct psychological constructs (Kozłowska et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Talbot \u0026amp; Jonason, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The MBAS has also been critiqued for its wording clarity. Ryan et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) revised the scale (MBAS-R), adding new items such as \u0026ldquo;I feel ashamed about my height.\u0026rdquo; Although this revision aimed to improve attitudinal assessment, it added only two height-related items (and retained only one). Ultimately, the MBAS may lack the nuance needed to effectively measure height dissatisfaction, including a greater number of items assessing cognitive, affective, and behavioral factors that may relate to height dissatisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eNegative Physical Self Scale (NPSS)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe NPSS, developed by Chen et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), offers a more comprehensive approach, with 48 items assessing concerns about weight, height, and appearance in Chinese adolescents, including 11 comprising the height dissatisfaction subscale (the NPSS-S). The NPSS-S addresses both the psychological impact of short stature and potential related compensatory behaviors (e.g., \u0026ldquo;I have tried to find ways to grow taller\u0026rdquo;). Findings using this scale show that shorter participants report greater body image distress, particularly in cultural contexts where height is linked to social and professional success.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite its broader coverage, the NPSS is also limited by a unidirectional focus on short stature, neglecting the experiences of taller individuals who may wish to be shorter (the subscale itself is titled the \u0026ldquo;Shortness\u0026rdquo; subscale). This is evident in the wording of several items. For instance, the item \u0026ldquo;The fact that I am short makes me very unhappy\u0026rdquo; assumes the respondent perceives themselves to be of shorter stature. There is also a redundancy issue across two items, (\u0026ldquo;I have tried to find ways to grow taller\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;I keep trying ways to get taller\u0026rdquo;) that seemingly asking respondents to reflect on the same construct.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAims: Development and initial validation of new Height Dissatisfaction Scale (HDS)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExisting measures fall short in capturing the full scope of height dissatisfaction, particularly its attitudinal, behavioral, and psychological dimensions. Our study aimed to address these gaps by developing the Height Dissatisfaction Scale (HDS), a novel measure designed to assess attitudes, behaviors, and emotional responses associated with height dissatisfaction. Importantly, the HDS was designed to measure height dissatisfaction, irrespective of direction (i.e., the want to be taller or shorter), and assess for a range of related cognitive, affective, and behavioral factors that may relate to height dissatisfaction. Additionally, our study aimed to provide validity and reliability evidence for the HDS, and explore sex differences in associations between the HDS, height, and related psychopathological factors.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants and Procedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were collected as part of a larger investigation exploring height dissatisfaction, body image, and the influence of social media. Our final sample comprised 332 participants, including Australian undergraduate psychology students (recruited through university Sona Systems) and members of the public recruited through social media and word-of-mouth. Participants were aged between 18 and 65 years (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;24.42, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.02), with an average self-reported height of 169.77 cm (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.84). The sample consisted of 242 women (72.89%) and 90 men (27.11%), who dominantly identified as heterosexual (74.70%), followed by bisexual (13.55%), homosexual (4.22%), and other sexuality (3.31%), with 4.22% of participants not reporting their sexuality. Most participants identified as Australian (47.5%), followed by European (21%), South-East Asian (8%), Middle Eastern (6.8%), East Asian (6.2%), South Asian (4.3%), Latin American/Hispanic (4.3%), Pacific Islander (0.6%), African (0.6%), and Other (0.6%).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants accessed the study via an online Qualtrics survey. Prior to participation, they were presented with an information sheet and provided informed consent. Two attention-check items were embedded in the survey to ensure data quality. Participants who failed either check, answered with unrealistic responses (e.g., height reported as 1567cm), and/or submitted incomplete responses were excluded from analysis, resulting in the removal of 108 individuals from an initial sample of 440. To reduce potential order effects, survey items were presented in randomized order. Psychology students received course credit, whereas community participants were not offered compensation. Ethical clearance for the study was obtained from the [University Name] Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval No. G\u0026ndash;35\u0026ndash;2024). A debriefing statement was provided at the end of the survey.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMeasures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eHeight Dissatisfaction Scale (HDS)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe developed the HDS to address the limitations of existing measures by capturing a broader and more nuanced understanding of the attitudes and behaviors associated with height-related body dissatisfaction. The initial scale comprised 14 items (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (\u003cem\u003estrongly disagree\u003c/em\u003e) to 5 (\u003cem\u003estrongly agree\u003c/em\u003e), with higher scores reflecting greater height dissatisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDescriptive Statistics for the Initial items of the Height Dissatisfaction Scale (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;332)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDomain\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRange\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI wish my height was different than what it is (i.e. taller or shorter)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI feel satisfied with my height*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.61\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI feel insecure about my height\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI think my height negatively affects my attractiveness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI avoid situations where my height might be noticeable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.84\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI wear shoes that make me appear taller\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.44\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI slouch or avoid standing straight to appear shorter\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI have considered or undergone medical procedures to change my height\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.72\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI try to lose body fat to compensate for my height\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.71\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI try to gain muscle mass/enhance muscle tone to compensate for my height\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.61\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI often compare my height to others\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.62\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI think my height makes me less competitive in romantic settings\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMy height negatively affects my self-esteem\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI feel that my height influences how others perceive and treat me\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.72\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNote. *Item 2 is reverse-coded. C\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Cognitive domain; A\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Affective domain; B\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Behavioral domain\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on prior height dissatisfaction scales (i.e., the MBAS and NPSS-S) and theoretical models of body dissatisfaction and eating disorders such including the Tripartite Influence Model (Tylka, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Van den Berg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e), Cognitive-Behavioral Model of Eating Disorders (Fairburn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Items were designed to assess four key domains: (i) attitudes toward height, (ii) height-related behaviors, (iii) perceptions and social comparisons, and (iv) psychological impact. Guided by the psychometric principles outlined by Boateng et al. (2018), the scale aimed to comprehensively capture both the internal and external influences on height dissatisfaction. To reflect the role of social comparison, items such as \u0026ldquo;I often compare my height to others\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;I think my height makes me less competitive in romantic settings\u0026rdquo; were included.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast to previous unidirectional scales, the HDS adopts a multidirectional approach, incorporating both upward and downward height dissatisfaction. For example, items such as \u0026ldquo;I wear shoes that make me appear taller\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;I slouch or avoid standing straight to appear shorter\u0026rdquo; reflect desires to appear taller or shorter, respectively. The scale also includes items that address compensatory behaviors, including \u0026ldquo;I try to lose body fat to compensate for my height\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;I have considered or undergone medical procedures to change my height.\u0026rdquo; Together, these items enable the HDS to capture diverse expressions of height dissatisfaction, offering a more comprehensive tool for understanding this understudied form of body image concern.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEating Disorder Examination Questionnaire Short (EDEQ-S)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe EDEQ-S (Gideon et al., 2016) is a 12-item self-report measure derived from the original 28-item Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (Fairburn \u0026amp; Beglin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). The EDEQ-S assesses core eating disorder behaviors and attitudes over the past 7 days, for instance \u0026ldquo;Have you gone for long periods (e.g., 8 or more waking hours) without eating anything at all to influence your weight or shape?\u0026rdquo;. Items are rated on a 4-point scale from 0 (\u003cem\u003eno days\u003c/em\u003e) to 4 (\u003cem\u003eevery day\u003c/em\u003e), with higher scores indicating greater disordered eating behaviors. The EDEQ-S has demonstrated strong reliability and validity in clinical and non-clinical populations (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.913 in Gideon et al., 2016, and α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.91 in the current study).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eNegative Physical Self Scale - Shortness Subscale (NPSS-S)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants completed the NPSS-S, derived from the original Negative Physical Self Scale (Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). The Shortness subscale measures negative attitudes toward one\u0026rsquo;s height, specifically short stature. It contains 11 items, rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 0 (\u003cem\u003enever\u003c/em\u003e) to 5 (\u003cem\u003ealways\u003c/em\u003e), with higher scores indicating greater dissatisfaction with being short. Items in the NPSS-S range from behavioral; \u0026ldquo;I have used exercises to increase my height\u0026rdquo; to attitudinal; \u0026ldquo;I think I am too short\u0026rdquo;. This subscale has been used to assess height-related body image concerns in diverse populations and has shown good reliability (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.88, Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e, and α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.91 in the current study).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBrief Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (B-RSES)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-esteem was assessed using the B-RSES (Monteiro et al., 2021), a 5-item Likert-type measure derived from the original 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). Items were rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), utilizing items such as \u0026ldquo;All in all, I am inclined to think that I am a failure\u0026rdquo; (reverse-scored). Higher average scores indicate greater self-esteem. In the present sample, the B-RSES demonstrated strong internal consistency reliability (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.86).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical Analyses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll statistical analyses were conducted using Jamovi (Version 2.6.19). Descriptive statistics were computed for all variables, and internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo evaluate the underlying structure of the HDS, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was first performed using the minimum residual (MINRES) extraction method with oblique (Oblimin) rotation, allowing for correlated factors. Bartlett\u0026rsquo;s test of sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure were used to determine the suitability of the data for factor analysis. Items with low loadings (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.40), high uniqueness values (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.70), or problematic cross-loadings were considered for removal in iterative refinements of the model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing the EFA, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using structural equation modelling (SEM) to test the fit of the proposed unidimensional model. Model fit was evaluated using the chi-square test, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) with its 90% confidence interval. Conventional criteria were used to interpret model fit (Hu \u0026amp; Bentler, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Kenny et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternal consistency reliability of the final HDS was examined using Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha. Convergent and concurrent validity were assessed using Spearman\u0026rsquo;s rho correlations due to non-normal distributions in key variables. Correlations were computed between HDS scores and relevant constructs, including actual height, ideal height, eating disorder symptoms (EDEQ-S), self-esteem (B-RSES), and narcissistic perfectionism (NPSS-S). To assess gender invariance in correlations, Fisher\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e-to-\u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e transformations were applied to test for significant differences in correlation strength between men and women (Meng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics for the 14 HDS items are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. Item means ranged from 1.23 (Item 8) to 3.33 (Item 1), with standard deviations between 0.72 and 1.71, indicating variability in responses across items. All items were rated on a 6-point Likert scale, with observed response ranges spanning the full scale (1 to 6) for each item, suggesting participants utilized the entire response spectrum.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eExploratory Factor Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on the initial 14-item Height Dissatisfaction Scale using a minimum residual extraction method combined with an Oblimin rotation to allow for correlated factors. Bartlett\u0026rsquo;s test of sphericity was significant, χ\u0026sup2;(91)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2536.80, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01, indicating sufficient correlations among items for factor analysis. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) was excellent, MSA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.92, with all individual items demonstrating adequate sampling adequacy (MSA range\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.73\u0026ndash;0.95).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInitial EFA results revealed a three-factor solution; however, some items (notably Items 6 and 8) demonstrated low loadings and high uniqueness values (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.70), suggesting poor representation within the factor structure. Item 7 was also removed due to suboptimal loading and cross-loading issues. Upon reanalysis excluding these items, the solution yielded a more interpretable factor structure, yet Item 10 displayed an anomalous factor loading of 1.00 with zero uniqueness, indicating near-perfect collinearity with Item 9. Consequently, Item 10 was removed to improve model stability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe final EFA on the remaining 10 items (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) suggested a unidimensional structure, with all factor loadings above .51 and uniqueness values ranging from .16 to .74. This single factor accounted for a substantial portion of the variance, reflecting a coherent latent construct of height dissatisfaction. The retained items loaded strongly on the factor, supporting the scale\u0026rsquo;s internal consistency and construct validity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eExploratory Factor Analysis Factor Loadings and Uniqueness Values for the Height Dissatisfaction Scale (10-item solution)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFactor 1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUniqueness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. I wish my height was different than what it is\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.72\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. I feel satisfied with my height*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.58\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. I feel insecure about my height\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.87\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. I think my height negatively affects my attractiveness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. I avoid situations where my height might be noticeable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9. I try to lose body fat to compensate for my height\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.74\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11. I often compare my height to others\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.77\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12. I think my height makes me less competitive in romantic settings\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.72\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13. My height negatively affects my self-esteem\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14. I feel that my height influences how others perceive and treat me\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*Note: Item 2 is reverse-coded. Minimum residual extraction and Oblimin rotation were used. Loadings\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;.30 were considered meaningful (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eConfirmatory Factor Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to evaluate the factorial validity of the HDS. The model included 10 indicators loading onto a single latent factor. The chi-square test indicated a significant discrepancy between the model and the data, χ\u0026sup2;(35)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;108.43, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, suggesting some misfit. However, chi-square is sensitive to sample size, so additional fit indices were examined (Bentler \u0026amp; Bonett, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFit indices indicated an acceptable overall fit: Comparative Fit Index (CFI)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.96 and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.95, both exceeding the conventional cutoff of 0.90 for good fit (Hu \u0026amp; Bentler, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was 0.08 with a 90% confidence interval ranging from 0.06 to 0.10, reflecting a reasonable error of approximation (Kenny et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). All factor loadings were statistically significant (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001) and ranged from 0.85 to 1.23, demonstrating strong indicator contributions to the latent factor (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConfirmatory Factor Analysis Standardized Factor Loadings for the Height Dissatisfaction Scale\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEstimate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eZ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. I wish my height was different than what it is\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.6*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. I feel satisfied with my height*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.93*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. I feel insecure about my height\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.09*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. I think my height negatively affects my attractiveness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.08*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. I avoid situations where my height might be noticeable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.69*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9. I try to lose body fat to compensate for my height\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.45*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11. I often compare my height to others\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.07*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12. I think my height makes me less competitive in romantic settings\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.94*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13. My height negatively affects my self-esteem\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21.72*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14. I feel that my height influences how others perceive and treat me\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.99\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.68*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNote. Factor loadings, standard errors (SE), and Z-values, are presented for each item loading on the single latent factor. *\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eReliability\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo examine internal consistency reliability, Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha was calculated for the 10-item HDS. The scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency, with a Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α of .92, indicating that the items reliably measured a single underlying construct.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eConvergent and Concurrent Validity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo examine convergent validity, we conducted a series of correlations between the HDS and actual height, ideal height, the EDEQ-S, and the B-RSES. Due to violations of normality in the HDS (\u003cem\u003eW\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.94, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), ideal height (\u003cem\u003eW\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.55, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), and the EDEQ-S (\u003cem\u003eW\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.93, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001) we used non-parametric Spearman\u0026rsquo;s correlation analyses. We found that the HDS significantly negatively correlated with actual height (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003es\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.16, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01), and positively correlated with the ideal-actual height difference score (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003es\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = .35, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). Further, the HDS was positively correlated with the EDEQ-S (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003es\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e ​ = .29, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001) and negatively correlated with the B-RSES (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003es\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e ​ = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.32, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). To examine concurrent validity, we examined the correlation between the HDS and the NPSS-S, finding that the two were highly positively correlated (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003es\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e ​ = .74, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSex Comparison of HDS Correlational Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorrelational analyses were conducted separately for men and women. Overall, the pattern of associations with the HDS were consistent across sexes (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). However, the correlation between HDS and perceived height discrepancy was significantly stronger for men than women, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.17, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCorrelations Between the HDS and Related Variables by Sex\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHDS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMen (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;90)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWomen (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;242)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHeight\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.34**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.15*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.62\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHeight Difference\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.58**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.26**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.17**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNPSS-S\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.78**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.68**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEDEQ-S\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.38**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.26**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB-RSES\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.36**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.29**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.63\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNote: \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e is Fisher\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e that was calculated online (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://quantpsy.org/corrtest/corrtest.htm\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://quantpsy.org/corrtest/corrtest.htm\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). HDS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Height Dissatisfaction Scale; NPSS-S =; EDEQ-S\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire - Short; B-RSES\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Brief Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. *\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05; **\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur study introduced and provided preliminary validation evidence for the Height Dissatisfaction Scale (HDS), a novel 10-item measure designed to assess a multidimensional construct of height dissatisfaction. In contrast to prior instruments that assessed height dissatisfaction in a limited and/or unidirectional manner (Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Tylka et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), the HDS captures cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions of height dissatisfaction across both directions of discontent - desiring to be either taller or shorter. Further, our findings offer promising support for the reliability and validity of the HDS.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eValidity and Reliability Evidence\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe psychometric evaluation of the HDS demonstrated strong internal consistency, with a Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha exceeding conventional thresholds for new scales (α\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.80) (Kline, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Exploratory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure, indicating that the scale items coherently reflect a single latent construct of height dissatisfaction. Importantly, the HDS also showed good convergent validity. As expected, HDS scores were significantly negatively correlated with actual height, suggesting that shorter individuals reported greater height dissatisfaction (Griffiths et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Talbot \u0026amp; Mahlberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Height dissatisfaction was also positively associated with the discrepancy between ideal and actual height, supporting the notion that greater divergence from one's desired height is linked to higher dissatisfaction. Additionally, higher HDS scores were moderately associated with greater eating pathology (Foster et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) and lower self-esteem (Jones et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), consistent with the broader literature on body dissatisfaction. To examine concurrent validity, we found a strong positive correlation between the HDS and the NPSS-S, indicating that the HDS aligns closely with an established measure of height dissatisfaction (or specifically, dissatisfaction with short stature). These results collectively support the construct validity of the HDS.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe scale also demonstrated content validity through item development grounded in theory and empirical evidence. Items were informed by the Tripartite Influence Model and designed to assess sociocultural influences, including social comparison, internalization of height ideals, and compensatory behaviors (Tylka, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Van den Berg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). This supports the assertion that the HDS assesses not just dissatisfaction per se, but also its affective, behavioral, and social-cognitive correlates.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStrengths of the HDS\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne of the key strengths of the Height Dissatisfaction Scale (HDS) is its ability to assess dissatisfaction in both directions\u0026mdash;wishing to be taller or shorter. This bidirectional approach offers a more comprehensive assessment of height dissatisfaction than previous, predominantly male-focused measures that typically emphasize a desire to be taller. By capturing dissatisfaction with being either too short or too tall, the HDS is particularly well-suited to reflect the range of height-related concerns.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur scale also addresses a critical limitation of previous tools by incorporating items related to compensatory behaviors, such as appearance modification, body composition change, and medical intervention. This expands the utility of the scale beyond mere attitudinal assessment and allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the behavioral manifestations of height dissatisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations and Future Directions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite these strengths, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, while the sample showed some diversity in participants\u0026rsquo; ethnicity, and sexuality, it was predominantly composed of Australian university students, which may limit the generalizability of findings. Future research should seek to validate the HDS in more demographically representative and cross-cultural samples to determine its broader applicability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, the study utilized a cross-sectional design, which limits inferences about causality. Although we observed associations between height dissatisfaction and eating disorder symptoms, longitudinal research is needed to establish the directionality and temporal stability of these relationships. It remains unclear, for example, whether height dissatisfaction precedes disordered eating or if pre-existing body image concerns contribute to heightened dissatisfaction with height.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, although preliminary factor analyses suggested a unidimensional structure, it is possible that more nuanced subfactors exist (e.g., upward vs. downward dissatisfaction, attitudinal vs. behavioral components). Future research using larger samples should explore the factorial complexity of the HDS via confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory to refine the scale and establish measurement invariance across gender and cultural groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, While the HDS demonstrated strong internal consistency and promising construct validity, a key psychometric limitation is the absence of test-retest reliability data. Future research should examine the temporal stability of the HDS using an appropriate retest interval to further support its reliability and interpretability in both clinical and research settings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn sum, the present study introduces a psychometrically sound and theoretically informed measure of height dissatisfaction. The HDS represents an important advancement in the assessment of body image concerns, providing a comprehensive tool that captures a broad range of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components of height dissatisfaction. By addressing key limitations of previous measures and offering strong preliminary evidence of reliability and validity, the HDS opens new pathways for research and clinical practice aimed at understanding and reducing height-related body image distress.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data and materials for this study are available on the Open Science Framework (OSF) at: [link to be inserted after peer review].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflicts of Interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSupplementary Materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupplementary materials, including the Height Dissatisfaction Scale (HDS) and scoring instructions, are available in the OSF repository linked above.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAllen, M. S., Iliescu, D., \u0026amp; Greiff, S. (2022). Single item measures in psychological science. In: Hogrefe Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmin, S., Ly, M., Misener, K., Brown, N., \u0026amp; Libben, M. (2024). Validation of the translated Negative Physical Self Scale in a sample of Asian women living in Canada. \u003cem\u003ePloS one\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 19\u003c/em\u003e(5), e0301184. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBentler, P. M., \u0026amp; Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. \u003cem\u003ePsychological bulletin\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 88\u003c/em\u003e(3), 588. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlaker, N. M., Rompa, I., Dessing, I. H., Vriend, A. F., Herschberg, C., \u0026amp; Van Vugt, M. (2013). The height leadership advantage in men and women: Testing evolutionary psychology predictions about the perceptions of tall leaders. \u003cem\u003eGroup Processes \u0026amp; Intergroup Relations\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 16\u003c/em\u003e(1), 17-27. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBornioli, A., Lewis-Smith, H., Slater, A., \u0026amp; Bray, I. (2021). Body dissatisfaction predicts the onset of depression among adolescent females and males: a prospective study. \u003cem\u003eJ Epidemiol Community Health\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 75\u003c/em\u003e(4), 343-348. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, H., Jackson, T., \u0026amp; Huang, X. (2006). The Negative Physical Self Scale: Initial development and validation in samples of Chinese adolescents and young adults. \u003cem\u003eBody Image\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 3\u003c/em\u003e(4), 401-412. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFairburn, C. G., \u0026amp; Beglin, S. J. (2008). Eating disorder examination questionnaire. \u003cem\u003eCognitive behavior therapy and eating disorders\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 309\u003c/em\u003e, 313. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFairburn, C. G., Cooper, Z., \u0026amp; Shafran, R. (2003). Cognitive behaviour therapy for eating disorders: A \u0026ldquo;transdiagnostic\u0026rdquo; theory and treatment. \u003cem\u003eBehaviour research and therapy\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 41\u003c/em\u003e(5), 509-528. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFavaro, A., Tenconi, E., Degortes, D., Soave, M., Zanetti, T., Nardi, M. T., Caregaro, L., \u0026amp; Santonastaso, P. (2007). Association between low height and eating disorders: cause or effect? \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Eating Disorders\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 40\u003c/em\u003e(6), 549-553. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFiske, L., Fallon, E. A., Blissmer, B., \u0026amp; Redding, C. A. (2014). Prevalence of body dissatisfaction among United States adults: Review and recommendations for future research. \u003cem\u003eEating behaviors\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 15\u003c/em\u003e(3), 357-365. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFoster, L., Lundh, L. G., \u0026amp; Daukantait\u0026eacute;, D. (2024). Disordered eating in a 10‐year perspective from adolescence to young adulthood: Stability, change, and body dissatisfaction as a predictor. \u003cem\u003eScandinavian journal of psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 65\u003c/em\u003e(1), 32-41. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrederick, D. A., Pila, E., Malcarne, V. L., Compte, E. J., Nagata, J. M., Best, C. R., Cook-Cottone, C. P., Brown, T. A., Convertino, L., \u0026amp; Crerand, C. E. (2022). Demographic predictors of objectification theory and tripartite influence model constructs: The US Body Project I. \u003cem\u003eBody Image\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 40\u003c/em\u003e, 182-199. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGriffiths, S., Murray, S. B., Medeiros, A., \u0026amp; Blashill, A. J. (2017). The tall and the short of it: An investigation of height ideals, height preferences, height dissatisfaction, heightism, and height-related quality of life impairment among sexual minority men. \u003cem\u003eBody Image\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 23\u003c/em\u003e, 146-154. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrogan, S. (2021). \u003cem\u003eBody image: Understanding body dissatisfaction in men, women and children\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGroves, V., Ridley, B. J., Cornelissen, P. L., Maalin, N., Mohamed, S., Kramer, R. S., McCarty, K., Tov\u0026eacute;e, M. J., \u0026amp; Cornelissen, K. K. (2023). Men\u0026apos;s perception of current and ideal body composition and the influence of media internalization on body judgements. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 14\u003c/em\u003e, 1116686. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., \u0026amp; Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. In \u003cem\u003eMultivariate data analysis\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 785-785). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHu, L. t., \u0026amp; Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. \u003cem\u003eStructural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-55. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJones, H., McIntosh, V. V., Britt, E., Carter, J. D., Jordan, J., \u0026amp; Bulik, C. M. (2022). The effect of temperament and character on body dissatisfaction in women with bulimia nervosa: The role of low self‐esteem and depression. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Eating Disorders Review\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 30\u003c/em\u003e(4), 388-400. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., \u0026amp; McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. \u003cem\u003eSociological methods \u0026amp; research\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 44\u003c/em\u003e(3), 486-507. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKline, P. (2015). \u003cem\u003eA handbook of test construction (psychology revivals): introduction to psychometric design\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKozłowska, M. A., Talbot, D., \u0026amp; Jonason, P. K. (2023). The Napoleon complex, revisited: Those high on the Dark Triad traits are dissatisfied with their height and are short. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 203\u003c/em\u003e, 111990. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcComb, S. E., \u0026amp; Mills, J. S. (2022). Eating and body image characteristics of those who aspire to the slim-thick, thin, or fit ideal and their impact on state body image. \u003cem\u003eBody Image\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 42\u003c/em\u003e, 375-384. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeng, X.-L., Rosenthal, R., \u0026amp; Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. \u003cem\u003ePsychological bulletin\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 111\u003c/em\u003e(1), 172. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMond, J., Mitchison, D., Latner, J., Hay, P., Owen, C., \u0026amp; Rodgers, B. (2013). Quality of life impairment associated with body dissatisfaction in a general population sample of women. \u003cem\u003eBMC Public Health\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 13\u003c/em\u003e, 1-11. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMurray, S. B., Brown, T. A., Lavender, J. M., Nagata, J. M., \u0026amp; Keel, P. K. (2020). The evolving nature of weight dissatisfaction and eating behaviors among men: Secular trends among college men across four decades. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Abnormal Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 129\u003c/em\u003e(8), 824. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026apos;Gorman, B., Sheffield, J., Anderson, L. E., \u0026amp; Griffiths, S. (2020). Trivialized and overlooked: A qualitative investigation of men recruited from an Internet-based forum for short-statured individuals. \u003cem\u003ePsychology of Men \u0026amp; Masculinities\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 21\u003c/em\u003e(2), 288. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Gorman, B., Sheffield, J., \u0026amp; Griffiths, S. (2019). Does masculinity moderate the relationship of height with height dissatisfaction? Findings from an Internet forum for short statured men. \u003cem\u003eBody Image\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 31\u003c/em\u003e, 112-119. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePazhoohi, F., Garza, R., \u0026amp; Kingstone, A. (2023). The interacting effects of height and shoulder-to-hip ratio on perceptions of attractiveness, masculinity, and fighting ability: Experimental design and ecological validity considerations. \u003cem\u003eArchives of Sexual Behavior\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 52\u003c/em\u003e(1), 301-314. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePerkins, T., Hayes, S., \u0026amp; Talbot, D. (2021). Shorter women are more dissatisfied with their height: An exploration of height dissatisfaction in Australian women. \u003cem\u003eObesities\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 1\u003c/em\u003e(3), 189-199. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePritchard, M., Brasil, K., McDermott, R., \u0026amp; Holdiman, A. (2021). Untangling the associations between generalized anxiety and body dissatisfaction: The mediating effects of social physique anxiety among collegiate men and women. \u003cem\u003eBody Image\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 39\u003c/em\u003e, 266-275. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRyan, T. A., Morrison, T. G., Roddy, S., \u0026amp; McCutcheon, J. (2011). Psychometric properties of the revised male body attitudes scale among Irish men. \u003cem\u003eBody Image\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 8\u003c/em\u003e(1), 64-69. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStulp, G., Buunk, A. P., Verhulst, S., \u0026amp; Pollet, T. V. (2015). Human height is positively related to interpersonal dominance in dyadic interactions. \u003cem\u003ePloS one\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 10\u003c/em\u003e(2), e0117860. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTalbot, D. (2023). Beyond Desirable in North America: an examination of actual and ideal body preferences, and body attractiveness preferences in a heterosexual sample of men and women from the USA. \u003cem\u003eDiscover Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 3\u003c/em\u003e(1), 42. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTalbot, D., \u0026amp; Jonason, P. K. (2025). Intrasexual envy, jealousy, and competitiveness are associated with height and height dissatisfaction. \u003cem\u003eEvolutionary Behavioral Sciences\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTalbot, D., \u0026amp; Mahlberg, J. (2023). Exploration of height dissatisfaction, muscle dissatisfaction, body ideals, and eating disorder symptoms in men. \u003cem\u003eJournal of American College Health\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 71\u003c/em\u003e(1), 18-23. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTalbot, D., \u0026amp; Mahlberg, J. (2024). An examination of the relationship between height, height dissatisfaction, drive for thinness and muscularity, and eating disorder symptoms in north American women. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 43\u003c/em\u003e(29), 24346-24354. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTylka, T. L. (2011). Refinement of the tripartite influence model for men: Dual body image pathways to body change behaviors. \u003cem\u003eBody Image\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 8\u003c/em\u003e(3), 199-207. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTylka, T. L., Bergeron, D., \u0026amp; Schwartz, J. P. (2005). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Male Body Attitudes Scale (MBAS). \u003cem\u003eBody Image\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 2\u003c/em\u003e(2), 161-175. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan den Berg, P., Thompson, J. K., Obremski-Brandon, K., \u0026amp; Coovert, M. (2002). The tripartite influence model of body image and eating disturbance: A covariance structure modeling investigation testing the mediational role of appearance comparison. \u003cem\u003eJournal of psychosomatic research\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 53\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1007-1020. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, Y.-H., Wang, Y.-L., Ly, M., Nichol, M., Misener, K., \u0026amp; Libben, M. (2022). Factorial validity, reliability, and measurement invariance of the Negative Physical Self Scale in a sample of men residing in North America. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Assessment\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 34\u003c/em\u003e(11), 1036. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWarren, C. S., \u0026amp; Akoury, L. M. (2020). Emphasizing the \u0026ldquo;cultural\u0026rdquo; in sociocultural: A systematic review of research on thin-ideal internalization, acculturation, and eating pathology in US ethnic minorities. \u003cem\u003ePsychology research and behavior management\u003c/em\u003e, 319-330. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYancey, G., \u0026amp; Emerson, M. O. (2016). Does height matter? An examination of height preferences in romantic coupling. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Family Issues\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 37\u003c/em\u003e(1), 53-73. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Australian Catholic University","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6798293/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6798293/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eHeight dissatisfaction is an under-recognized dimension of body image concern that may have unique psychological correlates. Existing measures, such as the Male Body Attitudes Scale (MBAS) and the Negative Physical Self Scale-Shortness subscale (NPSS-S), are limited by gender specificity, unidirectional assumptions (i.e., desiring greater height), and a lack of items addressing sociocultural influences. Our study aimed to develop and provide validity evidence for the Height Dissatisfaction Scale (HDS), a multidimensional measure designed to assess height dissatisfaction across affective, behavioral, and cognitive domains in individuals of any height or gender. A community and undergraduate sample (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;332; 72.9% women; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e age\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;24.42, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.02) completed the 14-item HDS alongside an established measures of height dissatisfaction (the NPSS-S), eating disorder symptoms, and self-esteem. Participants also reported their actual and ideal height, which was used to calculate a height difference score (ideal height \u003cem\u003eminus\u003c/em\u003e actual height). Exploratory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure with 10 items, which was further supported by confirmatory factor analysis. The HDS demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.92), and correlated with the NPSS-S, eating disorder symptoms, self-esteem, as well as participants\u0026rsquo; actual height and height difference score, supporting convergent and concurrent validity. Notably, the HDS captured both upward and downward dissatisfaction, identifying compensatory behaviors linked to height concerns (e.g., posture modification, body fat loss). However, test\u0026ndash;retest reliability was not assessed, limiting conclusions about temporal stability. The HDS offers a psychometrically sound tool for investigating height dissatisfaction and its psychological outcomes across diverse populations. Findings highlight the need to consider height in body image research and interventions.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Development and Initial Validity Evidence for the Height Dissatisfaction Scale","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-06-03 08:56:31","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6798293/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"5b04a961-91c4-4526-b6cb-f33de274e6f4","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 3rd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":49356423,"name":"Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-06-03T08:56:31+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-06-03 08:56:31","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6798293","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6798293","identity":"rs-6798293","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}