The relationship of self‐esteem and body esteem in women with and without eating disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We investigated the predictive utility of three dimensions of body esteem in explaining self-esteem in samples of eating-disordered (ED) and nonclinical women. METHOD: Participants comprised 74 ED women and 103 female university students. All women completed questionnaires measuring body esteem and self-esteem and all provided information on height and weight. We ran hierarchical multiple regression analyses with self-esteem as the outcome variable and participant status (clinical or non), body mass index (BMI), body esteem, and interaction terms as predictors. RESULTS: The main finding was a Body Esteem x Participant Status interaction involving the attribution dimension of body esteem. Specifically, among ED women, the higher their body esteem attribution (i.e., the more they endorsed items such as "I think my appearance would help me get dates"), the higher their self-esteem; whereas this relationship was not found among the students. DISCUSSION: Our results contribute to an emerging profile of ED patients as highly socially sensitive.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".