How do I evaluate myself? The importance of examining overevaluation of muscularity in risk for eating disorder symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The extent to which individuals view, think and feel about their shape and weight in relation to their self-esteem is understood as a risk factor for eating disorders. However, muscularity has yet to be examined as an appearance category that individuals may base their self-esteem on. Thus, this study examined whether evaluating oneself based on muscularity (overevaluation of muscularity) may be relevant to men and women's self-esteem and whether this form of self-evaluation may relate to eating disorder symptoms most prominently in men, who frequently present with muscularity concerns. METHOD: Young adults (N = 290; 50.3% cisgender women) were recruited from a Canadian university and completed a modified version of the Shape and Weight Based Self-Esteem Questionnaire and a measure of eating disorder symptoms. RESULTS: Men endorsed greater overevaluation of muscularity than women, although women endorsed greater overevaluation of shape and weight than men. Despite differences in the forms of appearance on which men and women based their self-esteem, multi-group structural equation models demonstrated that there were no differences in the associations between overevaluation of shape-, weight-, and muscularity and eating disorder symptoms across men and women. However, overevaluation of shape-, weight-, and muscularity were associated with distinct eating disorder symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Altogether, results provide nuanced information regarding the importance of assessing self-evaluation based on muscularity, alongside shape- and weight, as increased self-evaluation based on these appearance domains may confer risk for eating disorder symptoms.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".