Body-related social comparisons in college-aged men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social comparisons can have a negative impact on body image (van den Berg et al., 2007), with outcomes such as body dissatisfaction, and negative thoughts and feelings about the body particularly in women (Bergstrom & Neighbors, 2006). Less is known about the body-related social comparisons in men. The present study examined the nature of body-related social comparisons made by college-aged men. Participants (N=49) completed measures of the frequency and direction (positive or negative) of body-related comparisons they make to various targets (e.g., same-sex friends, models/celebrities) and on various body dimensions (e.g., appearance, strength). The results showed college-aged men compared themselves most frequently to same-sex friends and peers, and most frequently on the dimension of muscle mass or tone. They also made the most positive body-related comparisons to same-sex parents and on the dimension of co-ordination. Consistent with the existing literature, the results indicate same-sex friends and peers are chosen as the most frequent target for comparison, likely because their shared similarities provide a more realistic comparison (Franzoi & Klaiber, 2007). Body dimensions related to muscularity (i.e., muscle mass or tone) were likely compared most frequently because college-aged males tend to place great importance on this aspect of the body, which is consistent with Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954).?????
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".