Sociocultural Influences on Disordered Eating in Arab, Middle Eastern, and North African American Women: A Population Gap Research Study Examining the Roles of Acculturative Stress and Family, Peer, and Media Pressures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Arab, Middle Eastern, and North African (A-MENA) Americans are historically excluded from body image and eating disorder research; more specifically, no study to date examined sociocultural risk factors for disordered eating in this population. The current study is a secondary analysis (Kalantzis et al., Eating Behaviors, 53 , 101868, 2024) from a mixed-methods study, which found, through qualitative feedback on the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire, bicultural identity and family appearance pressures may be relevant when examining general eating, shape, and weight concerns in this population. From a non-clinical sample of A-MENA American women ( N = 244), pressures from family, peers, and media were associated higher internalization of thin-ideal above and beyond the effect of acculturative stress. Media pressure showed a larger effect size than peer pressure and family pressure in predicting the internalization of thin-ideal. Internalization of thin-, not muscular-, ideal was related to higher disordered eating, above and beyond the effect of acculturative stress. Findings suggest elements of the tripartite influence model in A-MENA American women with the inclusion of acculturative stress may be relevant in relation to global disordered eating. These findings should be utilized to explore further culturally relevant variables in A-MENA American women.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".