Teenage Body Image Perception, Body-shaping Behavior, and Body Composition With Respect to Use of “Fitspiration”: Exploratory Investigation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The social media trend #fitspiration aims to positively impact its users' health, but studies have shown detrimental effects, as it mainly involves stereotypical and barely achievable body images and health behaviors. During puberty, adolescents form their identity and body image, making it essential to examine social media's influence on their health. Objective: The exploratory investigation study, part of the mixed methods study in the project FIVE (#Fitspiration Image Verification), sought initial insights into how #fitspiration consumption may affect adolescents' body image perception, dieting, and exercise behaviors. Methods: In total, 86 adolescents (N=310, age range 14-18 years; n=42 females) attending upper secondary schools in Eastern Austria took part in an online questionnaire concerning the use of #fitspiration, body image perception, and body-shaping behaviors (dieting and working out) and bioelectrical impedance measurements to assess body composition. Participants have been classified as #fitspiration users (n=27), nonusers (n=51), and former users (n=8). We compared body image perceptions and body-shaping behaviors of #fitspiration user groups sex-specifically with the fat mass index (FMI) and the fat-free mass index (FFMI). Results: The results indicated that the amount of muscularity was of greater importance for all participants than thinness because, and even though the majority were of normal weight (76/86, 88%) and had an average to high FFMI (62/86, 92%), only 6% (5/86) of all participants thought that their amount of muscle mass was appropriate, while 43% (37/86) of all participants rated their body weight as okay. However, this outcome seemed to be of greater significance for #fitspiration users, especially males. While male participants seemed to be more dissatisfied with their amount of muscularity and worked out more often (female: 24/42, 57%, male: 35/44, 80%), female participants seemed to be more dissatisfied with their body weight and were dieting (female: 10/42, 24%; male: 6/44, 14%). Generally, none of the #fitspiration users (0/27, 0%) answered that her or his amount of muscle mass was okay, although all of them had an average or high FFMI (27/27, 100%). Participants assessed their body weight and body fat more precisely (54/86, 63% matched FMI) than their muscle mass (27/86, 31% matched FFMI). Conclusions: Our findings regarding the body ideals of adolescents are in line with the results of large-scale cross-sectional studies, indicating that they aspire to achieve a toned (and, for females, thin) body. The fact that none of the #fitspiration users were satisfied with their level of muscle mass raises the question of whether #fitspiration may perpetuate this ideal. The line between eating disorders and body dysmorphia might be very thin, especially during puberty. Therefore, our findings can be used to raise awareness of the speculated impact of #fitspiration on adolescents as a source for body ideals and consequently for body image perception and body-shaping behavior.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".