The Role of Self-Criticism and Shame in Body-Focused Repetitive Behaviour Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Body-focused repetitive behaviours (BFRBs), such as hair-pulling, skin-picking, and nail-biting, are non-functional habits associated with difficulties in emotion regulation. Although several models have been developed to explain the difficulties experienced by people suffering from BFRBs, a number of cognitive and emotional processes have yet to be explored. This study sought to investigate the psychological characteristics involved in the development and maintenance of BFRB symptoms. In particular, we aimed to evaluate the relationship of self-criticism, shame, and maladaptive cognitive emotion strategies with symptoms and examine if the relationship between perfectionism and symptoms was mediated by self-criticism and shame. Seventy-six participants from a community sample completed a number of self-report measures. Findings from our multivariate linear regression model supported that shame and maladaptive cognitive emotion regulation strategies significantly predicted BFRB symptoms. Results of our mediational analyses revealed that shame significantly mediated the relationship between perfectionism and BFRB symptoms. Interventions that target shame may be beneficial for treating these conditions. Future studies should replicate these findings with clinical populations and other BFRB subtypes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".