Upward and Downward: Social Comparison Processing of Thin Idealized Media Images
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to investigate the role of social comparison processing in women's responses to thin idealized images. In particular, it was predicted that comparison with the images on the basis of appearance would lead to more negative outcomes than comparison on the basis of intelligence. A sample of 114 women viewed fashion magazine advertisements featuring thin and attractive models under one of three instructional set conditions: control, appearance comparison, and intelligence comparison instructions. We found that both comparison instructional set conditions led to decreased mood relative to the control condition, but they had no effect on subsequent body dissatisfaction. However, regression analyses indicated that the form of processing in which individuals (irrespective of experimental condition) actually engaged was crucial. In particular, both appearance comparison processing (positively) and intelligence comparison processing (negatively) were associated with increased body dissatisfaction. In addition, poorer recall of both products and their brand names was associated with a greater impact of the media images on mood and body dissatisfaction. We concluded that the dimensions on which social comparison takes place are critical in women's response to media-portrayed thin ideal images, with comparisons on the basis of intelligence or education associated with more positive reactions. More generally, the results offer strong support to appearance social comparison as the mechanism by which idealized media images translate into body dissatisfaction for many women.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it