Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34379671›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Experimental manipulation of muscularity preferences through visual diet and associative learning.

Katy Jacques, Elizabeth Evans, Lynda Boothroyd

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Katy JacquesDepartment of Psychology, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7526-544X
Elizabeth EvansDepartment of Psychology, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3432-3778
Lynda BoothroydDepartment of Psychology, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Body preferences are somewhat flexible and this variability may be the result of one's visual diet (whereby mere exposure to certain bodies shifts preferences), associative learning mechanisms (whereby cues to health and status within the population are internalised and affect body preferences), or a mixture of both visual diet and associative learning effects. We tested how these factors may drive changes in preferences for muscularity in male bodies across a male and female sample. Three studies were conducted where participants viewed manipulation images of high and/or low muscle mass males which were either aspirational (high status clothing and posture) and/or neutral (no obvious cues to status). Preferences for muscularity were recorded before and after exposure to such manipulation images to assess whether body preferences had changed following manipulation. We found evidence for both the visual diet and associative learning hypotheses. Exposure to non-muscular male bodies decreased preferences for muscular bodies irrespective of image valence. Exposure to aspirational non-muscular male bodies alongside neutral muscular male bodies also led to a decrease in muscularity preferences. Further, when manipulation conditions are less obviously skewed towards a particular body type, preferences still shifted in the direction of the most prevalent body type, suggesting that demand characteristics are unlikely to have confounded results of previous adaptation experiments with more obvious manipulations.

Indexed as

Association LearningAdolescentAdultBody ImageDietFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationVisual PerceptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID34379671
PMCPMC8357086

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.