Body-part compatibility effects are modulated by the tendency for women to experience negative social comparative emotions and the body-type of the model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although exposure to physique-salient media images of women's bodies has been consistently linked with negative psychological consequences, little is known about the cognitive processes that lead to these negative effects. The present study employed a novel adaptation of a computerized response time (RT) task to (i) assess implicit cognitive processing when exposed to the body of another individual, and (ii) examine individual differences in social comparative emotions that may influence the cognitive processing of human bodies. Adult females with low (n = 44) or high (n = 23) tendencies for comparative emotions completed a task in which they executed responses to coloured targets presented on the hands or feet of images of ultra-thin, average-size, and above average-size female models. Although the colour of the target is the only relevant target feature, it is typically found that the to-be-ignored location of the target on the body of the model influences RTs such that RTs are shorter when the target is on a body-part that is compatible with the responding limb (e.g., hand response when target was on hand) than on a body-part that is incompatible with the responding limb (e.g., hand response when target was on foot). Findings from the present study revealed that the magnitude of the body-part compatibility effect (i.e., the index of the cognitive processing of the model) was modulated by tendencies for affective body-related comparisons. Specifically, women who were prone to experiencing social comparative emotions demonstrated stronger and more consistent body-part compatibility effects across models. Therefore, women with higher social comparison tendencies have heightened processing of bodies at a neurocognitive level and may be at higher risk of the negative outcomes linked with physique-salient media exposure.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".