MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384126480 · doi:10.1002/jad.12216

Body‐related shame disrupts attentional focus over time in adolescence

2023· article· en· W4384126480 on OpenAlexafffund
Madison F. Vani, Kristen M. Lucibello, Timothy N. Welsh, Catherine M. Sabiston

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescence · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotions and Moral Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyShameDevelopmental psychologyFocus (optics)Cognitive psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Body-related shame is a negative self-conscious emotion that is heightened during adolescence and is associated with several adverse outcomes. Of particular interest, and informed by Objectification Theory, body-related shame may impact attentional focus because the experience of this intense emotion may limit cognitive resources required to effectively engage in tasks. The purpose of the present study was to examine the association between body-related shame and attentional focus over time during adolescence. METHODS: ± SD = 16.05 ± 0.98; 80% self-identifying girls) completed an online survey in 2022 at baseline (Time 1) and 3 months later (Time 2). Stepwise regression was used to test the association between body-related shame and attentional focus, with weight perception included as a covariate. RESULTS: The regression model demonstrated that higher body-related shame predicted poorer attentional focus 3 months later (β = -0.44, p < .001), after controlling for weight perception (14% variance explained in attention). CONCLUSIONS: Findings support and extend theoretical tenets by highlighting the potential importance of targeting body-related shame to reduce the negative impact on attentional focus among adolescents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AdolescenceSame topicEmotions and Moral BehaviorFrench-language works237,207