Body image in males as related to fraternity membership and levels of exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous body image research has typically included females, while comparatively fewer studies focus solely on males. These studies have variously concluded that males are satisfied and dissatisfied with their bodies, with many suggesting that the desire for muscularity is related to their dissatisfaction without assessing muscularity levels. Exercise involvement has been linked to body image ratings, with regular exercisers reporting more satisfaction. The present study attempted to clarify the nature and extent of body dissatisfaction in males using 202 undergraduate males recruited from three Michigan-area universities. Males were grouped according to fraternity membership (n = 81), and football participation (n = 61), and participation in neither group (n = 60). Analyses focused on the effects of group membership and exercise levels on body image ratings, which was assessed using the Figure Rating Scale, the Body Esteem Scale, and several muscularity-related questions. No significant differences were found between the satisfaction levels of fraternity members and non fraternity, non-football males, or between football players and non-fraternity, non-football males. Findings indicated widespread dissatisfaction with current appearance, with most males desiring a more muscular upper body and, to a lesser extent, a more muscular lower body. The desire to be leaner in addition to more muscular was commonly reported. Several reasons for this dissatisfaction were identified, and were found to be similar in content among the groups but varied in terms of importance. A majority of the males reported at least some degree of satisfaction with their physical conditioning, physical attractiveness, and upper body strength. Low exercisers were more dissatisfied than regular exercisers on all body image variables except muscularity levels. These findings are discussed in the context of previous findings, and directions for future research are suggested.Dept. of Psychology. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2000 .K45. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 40-03, page: 0789. Adviser: Cheryl Thomas. Thesis (M.A.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2000.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".