Adolescents’ reports of parental objectification of others’ bodies are associated with their body image and eating behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study examined the extent to which adolescents' perceptions of their parents' sexually objectifying behaviors toward other people's bodies and fat talk comments about individuals with higher weight are associated with adolescents' own body image and eating behaviors. Both positive (body esteem and intuitive eating) and negative (body dissatisfaction and bulimia symptoms) dimensions of these outcomes were assessed. METHODS: Participants were 434 teenagers (350 girls, 56 boys, and 28 gender-diverse) aged 14 to 17 years (M = 15.72, SD = 1.00), recruited through social media advertisements. To assess their parents' propensity for body objectification, the adolescents completed an adapted version of the Interpersonal Sexual Objectification Scale and a fat talk scale. They also completed questionnaires assessing their body image and eating behaviors. RESULTS: Structural equation modeling revealed that fathers' (but not mothers') sexually objectifying behaviors toward other people's bodies were associated with adolescents' body image outcomes, specifically greater body dissatisfaction and lower body esteem. Fathers' and mothers' sexually objectifying behaviors toward other people's bodies were also linked to adolescents' eating behaviors, including more bulimia symptoms and less intuitive eating. Moreover, mothers' (but not fathers') fat talk about individuals with higher weight was associated with adolescents' body image outcomes (i.e., greater body dissatisfaction and lower body esteem), but not with their eating behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that how parents comment on and treat other people's bodies may relate to their adolescent child's body image concerns and eating behaviors, with distinct patterns emerging for fathers and mothers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".