The role of personality in body image dissatisfaction and disordered eating: discrepancies between men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Body image and disordered eating research has focused mostly on the female experience. The present study examined gender differences in the relationship between personality, disordered eating, and body image dissatisfaction. METHODS: = 4.22) at a Canadian university. Materials included a battery of self-report questionnaires pertaining to personality, body image, and disordered eating. RESULTS: As expected, females reported more body dissatisfaction and disordered eating than males. Personality factors were found to be significantly related to the experience of body dissatisfaction in both genders. Further, several personality traits significantly contributed to the prediction of male (high Neuroticism, low Conscientiousness) and female (high Neuroticism) body dissatisfaction beyond the influence of body mass index (BMI). Interestingly, and contrary to findings with female participants, personality traits were not significantly related to disordered eating scores in men. Among women, disordered eating scores were significantly predicted by high Neuroticism and Extraversion, and low Conscientiousness. CONCLUSIONS: Although the relationship between disordered eating, body image dissatisfaction, and personality is well-documented in females, this relation may differ for males. The focus on male body image has been increasing in Western society; exploring how males view their bodies may be beneficial to researchers and clinicians alike.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".