The Slim-Thick Ideal: Its Impact on Women's Body Image and Eating, Exercise, and Body Modification Behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past research has widely focused on the impact of idealized images of unrealistically thin or fit women, referred to as the thin- and fit-ideal, on young women’s body image. Recently, a more curvaceous take on the thin-ideal, called the slim-thick-ideal, characterized by a small waist and flat stomach, but large hips, butt, and breasts has gained popularity in mainstream media. Despite an increase in the popularity of this ideal, little is known about the impact of the slim-thick-ideal on women’s body image and which women aspire to this ideal. As such, in three studies I sought to investigate who was likely to aspire to the slim-thick-ideal, and its impact on women’s body image. Study 1 sought to investigate the comparative impact of the slim-thick-ideal on women’s body image, relative to the thin- and fit-ideal, and if physical appearance perfectionism moderated these findings. It was found that exposure to all three body ideals resulted in increased weight and appearance dissatisfaction and lower overall body satisfaction, which was most pronounced for those who saw the slim-thick-ideal, and among those high on physical appearance perfectionism. Study 2 sought to replicate the findings of Study 1, to investigate which body ideal was most preferred among young women, and which personality and behavioural traits were characteristic of women who aspired to each ideal. Study 1 findings were replicated. The slim-thick-ideal was rated as the most attractive and desirable of the three ideals. Those who aspired to the slim-thick-ideal reported greater disordered eating, dietary restraint, physical appearance perfectionism, and body modification behaviours than those who aspired to the thin- or fit-ideal. Study 3 investigated if there was an association between preferred ideal and ethnicity and eating, purging, exercise, and body modification behaviours. Women of colour preferred the slim-thick-ideal most; White women endorsed each ideal in equal proportions. For the most part, there was no association between preferred body ideal and eating, purging, exercise or body modification behaviours, indicating that those who aspire to the slim-thick-ideal are engaging in the same harmful behaviours as those who aspire to the thin- and fit-ideal. Clinical implications are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".