Relational bullying and disordered eating: Testing a moderated mediation model of the role of shame and self-compassion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Experiences of relational bullying (RB) in adolescence are associated with the development of disordered eating. This association may be related to heightened shame resulting from perceived social inferiority, low social rank, and/or negative evaluation by others. Self-compassion may act as a protective factor against the influence of RB on shame and disordered eating. In the current study, we investigated whether shame mediated the relationship between recalled RB and current disordered eating in a sample of young adults. Then, using conditional process analysis, we examined whether the observed mediation was moderated by self-compassion. Method: Participants were 359 young adults (aged 17-25) who completed online self-report measures of recalled RB experiences and current disordered eating, shame, and self-compassion. Results: Experiences of RB were positively related to current shame and disordered eating, and negatively related to current self-compassion, with small-to-medium effect sizes. The association between RB and disordered eating was partially mediated by shame, and this mediation was moderated by self-compassion. Discussion: Our results suggest that young adults with lower self-compassion are more likely to demonstrate a relationship between recalled RB and disordered eating through the mechanism of shame. These findings have important implications for both anti-bullying awareness and eating disorder prevention programs.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".