Restrained and Unrestrained Eaters' Attributions of Success and Failure to Body Weight and Perception of Social Consensus: The Special Case of Romantic Success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Restrained and unrestrained eaters' attributions of success and failure to body weight were explored in two studies. Study 1 showed that when presented with statements attributing life outcomes to body weight, restrained eaters associated thinness with success significantly more than unrestrained eaters did, particularly in the professional and romantic areas of life. This study also showed that both groups assume a strong social consensus for their respective positions regarding the importance of thinness for social and personal success. However, in the case of romantic success, unrestrained eaters also assumed social consensus for the proposition that thinness is essential to romantic success, despite not agreeing with this proposition themselves. Study 2 showed that, when making attributions for the success or failure of a supposedly real woman, restrained eaters attributed her romantic success to thinness and her romantic failure to being overweight, whereas unrestrained eaters' attributions for success and failure remained uninfluenced by weight. Restrained eaters' consistent association of romantic success and thinness is discussed in terms of self–esteem and sociocultural influences. The social consensus estimates are further discussed in terms of their possible effect on dieting and eating pathology. These results also suggest that the widespread belief in a social consensus associating thinness and romantic success might be inaccurate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".