Body-related shame and authentic pride are independently associated with self-rated health in young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although body weight has been positioned as a strong predictor of physical and mental health, positive and negative body-related psychosocial factors may also be important. Further, both theoretical tenets and empirical evidence suggest that these associations may differ by gender. Our objectives were to examine the associations between body-related self-conscious emotions (body shame, body authentic pride) and physical and mental health in young adults, and to identify potential differences in these associations by gender. METHODS: Data for this cross-sectional study were drawn from the Nicotine Dependence in Teens (NDIT) study for 799 young adults (M [SD] age = 33.6 y [0.5]; 43.9% male). We estimated the associations between each of body shame and body authentic pride (i.e. the exposures) and both self-rated physical and self-rated mental health (i.e. the outcomes) in linear regression models that controlled for age, education and body mass index, and we examined potential gender differences in these associations by conducting gender-stratified analyses. RESULTS: In females, self-rated health and mental health decreased by 0.37 and 0.38, respectively, with each unit increase in body shame. Self-rated health and mental health increased by 0.25 and 0.23, respectively, for each unit increase in body authentic pride. In males, self-rated health and mental health decreased by 0.35 and 0.45, respectively, with each unit increase in body shame, and increased by 0.32 and 0.21, respectively, with each unit increase in body authentic pride. CONCLUSION: Interventions that focus on body weight to the exclusion of body-related self-conscious emotions may side-step a key contributor to self-rated health.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".