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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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".