Fit for Whom? Gendered Impacts of the Fit Ideal on Body Image and Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Societal body ideals are shifting from thinness for women and muscularity for men to a unified “fit ideal” that emphasizes both leanness and muscle mass across genders. This study tested a revised tripartite influence model, and employed the Fit-Ideal Internalizatfion Test, in a sample of 288 Australian adults ( M age = 22.7; 31% men). Path analysis examined links among social media pressure, fit-ideal internalization, appearance comparison, body dissatisfaction, compulsive exercise, and muscularity-oriented eating (e.g., ingestion of high levels of protein). Results showed that fit-ideal internalization directly predicted compulsive exercise and muscularity-oriented eating in both men and women and mediated the influence of social media pressure on these behaviors. In women only, both internalization and appearance comparison mediated the link between social media pressure and body dissatisfaction, and body dissatisfaction and peer pressure directly predicted muscularity-oriented eating. Although men and women internalized the fit ideal to a similar degree, their behavioral outcomes differed, indicating gender-specific pathways. These findings highlight the importance of gender-informed, media-literate interventions. Clinicians and educators should tailor strategies to the distinct social pressures identified, while recognizing overlap. Public health campaigns and policies must promote inclusive messaging that disrupts the progression from fit-ideal internalization to body dissatisfaction, disordered eating, and compulsive exercise across genders.
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".