Physical activity levels influence body-part compatibility effects during exposure to physique-salient images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to social comparison theory, media-portrayed images of body ideals are likely to evoke automatic social comparisons in women, and may be linked with appearance-management behaviours, such as physical activity. The objectives of this study were to (i) assess the impact of a forced automatic physique-comparison on reaction time in a body-part compatibility task, and (ii) examine the moderating effect of physical activity. Young adult female participants completed a computerized task in which they executed hand- and foot-press responses to coloured targets on the hand or foot of physique-salient digital images of three models. Models had distinct body shapes, conceptualized from media-portrayals and consisted of a thin-ideal model, average-size model, and a plus-size model. Participants were 18-25 years of age (Mage=19.97±1.56) and were categorized as low moderate-to-vigorous physically active (MVPA; n=33, Mdays=2.37) or high MVPA (n=34, Mday=4.59). Consistent with previous research on body-part compatibility, reaction times were shorter for compatible body-part pairings (e.g., hand response to the hand stimulus) than for incompatible pairings (e.g., hand response to the foot stimulus). Additionally, a significant 4-way interaction effect (F(2,130)=4719.86, p<0.05) revealed that the compatibility effect was largest for the thin-ideal model, and was modulated by higher MVPA. That is, there was larger body-part compatibility for women who make implicit social comparison when presented with a physique-salient model, and that this is especially true in more physically active women. Following a social comparison framework, it is likely that individuals who are more physically active are also primed to dedicate more cognitive processing resources (e.g., social comparison) when presented with physique-salient cues, especially when these cues fit the normative thin-ideal. Further research is needed to elucidate the role of MVPA as an adaptive or maladaptive behaviour linked with exposure to popular media-driven thin body ideals.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".