The role of current and anticipated body shame in physical activity: An extension of objectification theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectification theory posits that the socialization of girls to self-objectify and monitor their bodies contributes to negative emotional experiences (e.g., body shame), and consequent psychological phenomena that disproportionately impact women (e.g., disordered eating, physical activity avoidance). Self-objectification may also be extended to the anticipation of negative emotions when thinking about changes to one's body in the future. Since self-objectification is heightened during adolescence, it is possible that it may lead to the decreased physical activity engagement that is observed in girls during this developmental period. The present study examined the role of body surveillance and body shame on physical activity among adolescent girls. Physically active girls (n = 201; Mage = 14.02 ± 1.38 years, MBMI = 19.78 ± 2.82) reported body surveillance at baseline, and their current and anticipated bodily shame, and physical activity 2 years later. Although body surveillance was not prospectively linked to physical activity, both anticipated (B = 0.059, CI = 0.003 to 0.131) and current body shame (B = -0.121, CI = -.211 to -.046) mediated the relationship between body surveillance and physical activity (R2adj=0.17). As expected, body surveillance increased both the experience and anticipation of body shame. Further, the experience of body shame was associated with the avoidance of physical activity, whereas the anticipation of shame was linked with higher engagement, presumably to avoid feeling shame in the first place. Extending objectification theory to include anticipated shame may be a promising avenue for exploring physical activity disengagement among adolescent girls.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".