Men’s Baldness Stigma and Body Dissatisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Head hair forms a central component of the sociocultural male appearance ideal (e.g., mesomorphic, tall, young and not bald) and carries masculine connotations and stigma. Immense pressures to conform to this male appearance ideal gives rise to body dissatisfaction. Previous assessments of body dissatisfaction are too narrow, ignoring dissatisfaction beyond mesomorphy such as baldness dissatisfaction. Our study involved two research questions: (i) Do the facial expressions assigned to images of bald and non-bald men differ? and (ii) What forms of body dissatisfaction, including baldness dissatisfaction, do men have and are these related to men’s wellbeing and muscularity behaviours? Method: Eighty-six male participants aged 18–58 years (mean = 23.62; standard deviation = 7.80) were randomly exposed to 10 images of smiling men (half balding and half not) and were asked to rate the facial expression displayed. Participants also rated their body dissatisfaction and wellbeing. Ethics statement: Institutional ethics approval was granted. Results: We found that participants interpreted the facial expressions of images of bald men slightly more negatively than non-bald men. Most participants reported some form of body dissatisfaction correlated with wellbeing and muscularity enhancing behaviours, albeit weakly. Participants also disclosed a range of body dissatisfaction aspects (including surrounding muscularity, body fat, teeth alignment, skin tone and facial hair amount) though generally were not impacted heavily nor highly dissatisfied. Conclusion: These findings underscore the complex challenge in producing a complete assessment of men’s body dissatisfaction and the general resilience men experience with extant appearance pressures around their bodies and head hair.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".