Enriching sociocultural perspectives on the effects of idealized body norms: Integrating shame, positive body image, and self-compassion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Body image is an integral aspect of the psychology of the self. Idealized body images are ubiquitous in both traditional media forms (e.g., magazines, television) and social media (e.g., Facebook, Instagram). The classic sociocultural model of body image (i.e., the Tripartite Influence Model) emphasizes pathways between idealized body norms, appearance comparisons, internalization of body ideals, and body dissatisfaction and its outcomes. We summarize the model and identify some issues to be addressed in future work, particularly in light of the immense popularity of social media. We review three topics that are not included in the sociocultural model but that provide a more complete picture of the influence of societal body norms on body image: (1) body shame, (2) positive body image, and (3) self-compassion. Research on the nature, assessment, and relevance of these constructs is reviewed in detail. In terms of clinical applications of these areas of research for individuals at risk of body dissatisfaction, we suggest assessing for and targeting body shame, cultivating facets of positive body image, and teaching strategies for developing self-compassion.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".