Shifting goalposts: widening discrepancies between girls’ actual and ideal bodies predict disordered eating from preadolescence to adulthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding how disordered eating (DE) relates to perceived actual body size, ideal body size, and their discrepancy. This study examined changes in perceived actual body size, ideal body size, and actual-ideal discrepancies over time, and their relationship with subsequent DE. METHODS: Participants were 759 female twins from the Minnesota Twin Family Study who reported on body image and DE every three to five years between approximately ages 11 to 29. We used multilevel modeling to examine developmental trajectories of body mass index (BMI) and Body Rating Scale Actual, Ideal, and Actual-Ideal discrepancy scores and compared the degree to which BMI, BRS body size perceptions, and body dissatisfaction predicted DE behaviors and attitudes over time. Participants were treated as singletons in analyses. RESULTS: Perceived Actual body sizes and BMIs increased from age 10 to 33, whereas Ideal body sizes remained largely stable across time, resulting in growing Actual-Ideal discrepancies. Body size perceptions and Actual-Ideal discrepancies predicted subsequent DE behaviors and attitudes more strongly than did body dissatisfaction as measured by self-report questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: This research advances understanding of how female body size perceptions and ideals change across development and highlights their relationship with subsequent DE.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".