Social comparisons of body weight and attractiveness with fashion models and peers: To whom do young women compare?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A great deal of research has sought to demonstrate a relation between exposure to thin-ideal media images and body-image disturbance among women. Many of these studies have found that exposure to thin-ideal images has either an adverse main effect on self perceptions or an interactive effect with pre-existing body-image disturbance, such that individuals with pre-existing body image disturbance experience adverse effects of these images. However, women are also frequently exposed to thin others through their interactions with peers, but relatively little research has examined the effects of exposure to thin peers on body dissatisfaction. Furthermore, closer examination of the literature reveals inconsistent effects of exposure to thin-ideal fashion models both across and within studies. The purpose of this series of studies was to demonstrate that young women who are concerned about their weight will use information about a peer's weight to evaluate themselves and that, in general, social comparisons of body weight with thin peers have a more negative impact than comparisons with fashion models because peers are more similar and therefore more relevant for self-evaluation. Studies 1 and 2 aimed to demonstrate that information about a peer's weight is used to determine self-evaluation among young women who are concerned about their body weight. Studies 3 and 4 directly compared the effects of exposure to thin and attractive fashion models and peers with the aim of demonstrating that young women are more adversely affected by thin and attractive peers than fashion models. The results of study 1 showed negative effects of exposure to a peer's weight on body dissatisfaction and appearance state self-esteem among restrained eaters. The subsequent two studies failed to detect a negative impact of exposure to information about a peer's weight. However, study 4 found that for participants with low trait appearance self-esteem only, exposure to a thin and attractive peer resulted in lower global state self-esteem. Exposure to thin peers does not appear to have consistent negative effects on young women. The effects of exposure to thin peers appear to be similar to the effects of exposure to thin fashion models---in that the effects are inconsistent.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".