The Influence of Peer Relationships on Women's Lived Body Experiences Across the Lifespan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the role of peers in women's lived experiences in their bodies from childhood to young adulthood. The present study used a qualitative life history methodology to delineate the range of peer processes, both adverse and protective, that affect women's connection to their bodies over time, as well as the meaning women make of these processes, and their internalized reactions to peer influences across a developmental trajectory. In-depth interviews were conducted among fourteen women between the ages of 25 and 35, representing diverse social and cultural backgrounds, as well as current and past eating and body image problems. Women participated in open-ended interviews, using a series of guided questions about their experiences with peers that affected their lived experiences in their bodies, from childhood through to adulthood. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed for themes using a grounded theory methodology. Two interrelated models emerged from the data that clarified ways in which relationships with peers shaped interviewed women's lived experiences in their bodies over time. The Peer Processes Related to Dominant and Alternative Norms, Ideals and Expectations Model addresses peer processes related to the promotion of dominant and alternative norms, ideals and expectations regarding appearance and ways of inhabiting the body as girls and women. The Implications of Peer Processes on Social Power and Acceptance model delineates the ways in which widely sanctioned norms, ideals and expectations pertaining to participants' bodies and appearances, are expressed and internalized through concerns for peer status, power, belonging and acceptance. The research has both clinical and research implications, shedding important light on the ways in which peers enhance, maintain and disrupt girls' and women's connection to their bodies over time.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".