MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992745368 · doi:10.1177/014616702237650

Effects of Exposure to Thin Media Images: Evidence of Self-Enhancement among Restrained Eaters

2002· article· en· W1992745368 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer S. Mills, Janet Polivy, C. Peter Herman, Marika Tiggemann

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDietingPsychologyFantasySocial psychologyMoodFeelingIdeal (ethics)Negative moodDevelopmental psychologyObesityWeight loss

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of viewing media-portrayed idealized body images on eating, self-esteem, body image, and mood among restrained and unrestrained eaters were examined. Study 1 found that restrained eaters (i.e., dieters), but not unrestrained eaters, rated both their ideal and current body sizes as smaller and disinhibited their food intake following exposure to idealized body images. These results suggest that restrained eaters are susceptible to a “thin fantasy” brought about by viewing ideal body images. Study 2 found that strengthening thinness attainability beliefs can further enhance the thin fantasy demonstrated by restrained eaters following exposure to idealized body images. Study 3 examined whether demand characteristics moderate these effects of media-portrayed idealized body images. As predicted, when explicit demand characteristics were present, participants reported feeling worse following exposure to thin models. The complexities of the media’s role in the development and maintenance of body dissatisfaction and dieting behavior are discussed.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations295
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonality and Social Psychology BulletinSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207