Not just a pretty face: Physical attractiveness and perfectionism in the risk for eating disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Considerable research has examined the correlates and consequences of both objective and subjective ratings of physical attractiveness. Numerous studies have found, for example, that subjective physical attractiveness is inversely related to weight and diet concerns. Surprisingly, however, no research has examined the relationship between objective physical beauty and eating pathologies, despite clinical and theoretical reasons to expect a positive relationship between the two. METHOD: We rated 203 young women on facial attractiveness and obtained self-report measures of perfectionism, neuroticism, and weight preoccupation. RESULTS: Attractiveness was positively related to weight preoccupation after controlling for body size and neurotic perfectionism. DISCUSSION: These findings provide the first evidence of physical beauty as a risk for disordered eating, and confirm earlier evidence that the relationship between general perfectionism and disordered eating only occurs when combined with a tendency to be anxious and hypercritical. Results are discussed in the context of identity formation and the attractiveness stereotype.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".