Selective mood‐induced body image disparagement and enhancement effects: Are they due to cognitive priming or subjective mood?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study evaluated the effects of mood induction procedures on body image. METHOD: Eighty female undergraduates participated in combinations of two valences (negative vs. positive) and two types (self-referent vs. other-referent) of mood induction procedures (MIPs). A measure of subjective mood and seven measures of body image were administered before and after the MIPs. RESULTS: Individuals in the self-referent MIP who had high negative body image at the pretest demonstrated increases in negative body image after exposure to the negative valence MIP (a disparagement effect) and decreases in negative body image after exposure to the positive valence MIP (an enhancement effect). This pattern was not evident in the other-referent MIP. Also, changes in negative body image were not appreciably associated with changes in subjective mood. DISCUSSION: The findings yielded support for the cognitive priming hypothesis but not for the subjective mood hypothesis. Further means of examining the cognitive priming hypothesis were outlined.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".