Why is it so hard to change? The role of self‐integrity threat and affirmation in weight loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract People are frequently dissatisfied with their body weight. Messages alleging that lower weight is esthetically preferable, healthier, and achievable likely trigger chronic self‐integrity threat, the sense that one's personal adequacy is in doubt. We examined whether self‐integrity threat, which creates stress and pressure to restore self‐integrity, contributes to the challenges of weight and behavior change. Weight‐dissatisfied women completed in‐lab tasks including a values affirmation manipulation and two‐month follow‐up. Affirmed women lost weight relative to controls, replicating previous research. Effects were primarily among those with higher initial body masses. Affirmed higher‐weighted women also ate more healthful foods compared to unhealthful foods in self‐reports and observation. Affirmed participants reported increased exercise, and an exploratory measure showed that their cortisol awakening responses synchronized with their coping needs, suggesting more adaptive physiological function. Results suggest that self‐integrity threat is an under‐recognized barrier to change, and reducing it can support healthy changes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".