The role of perfectionism and excessive commitment to exercise in explaining dietary restraint: Replication and extension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The etiological complexity of the eating disorders has incited researchers to examine how personality characteristics and other variables operate jointly in the development of deviant eating patterns. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the independent, interactive, and indirect prediction of dietary restraint by perfectionism and excessive commitment to exercise. METHOD: Multiple regression analyses designed to test moderating and mediating models were conducted on a sample of female university students (n = 269). RESULTS: Several dimensions of perfectionism, as well as excessive commitment to exercise, significantly and independently predicted dietary restraint in these women. There was no evidence for an interaction effect. Mediation analyses suggested that for selected dimensions of perfectionism, the direct relationship between perfectionism and dietary restraint is partially explained by excessive commitment to exercise. DISCUSSION: Interventions aimed at challenging perfectionistic standards in the context of dieting need to address not only one's self-standards, but one's perceptions of standards held by others. The mediating role of excessive exercise commitment pinpoints this variable as an alternative intervention target in the prevention of excessive dieting.
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".