How do weight-related social pressures relate to perceptions of the physical self?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research supports a negative relationship between body dissatisfaction and self-esteem. In line with developmental models of the self, the purpose of this study was to examine the association between social pressures and physical self-perceptions. Older adolescents (N=184, 46% male; Mean age=18.5 (SD=2.4) years) completed self-report questionnaires to assess weight-related social pressures (i.e., negative commentary (NC) and encouragement for weight change (EWC)), source of social pressure, and perceptions of physical self. Partial correlation coefficients, controlling for body weight, were examined among social pressures and physical self-perceptions, and compared across sex. Many females (47% & 49%) and males (31.3% & 20.5%) reported NC and EWC, respectively. NC was related to lower physical self-worth (r=-.27 & -.40) and self-esteem (r=-.24 & -.36) in females and males. EWC was associated with physical self-worth (r=-.21) for females only. Pressure from mothers was significantly associated with perceptions of physical self-worth for females and males (r=-.29), and self-esteem for males (r=-.26). Father and sibling pressure was related to males' self-esteem (r=-.42 & -.27) and physical self-worth for father pressure only (r=-.27). Social pressures were most highly related to perceptions of body fat for females, and both body fat and strength for males. Future research should address reducing "weight talk" and providing youth with coping skills to reduce these consequences.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".