ArticleJournal of eating disorders2025
Sweet words, secretly sour? Ambivalent sexism may predict disordered eating in Chinese women: the roles of self-objectification, body image comparison, and partner intimacy.
Article in Journal of eating disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGiven the prevalence of disordered eating and the persistence of traditional gender roles in China, this study examined the relationship between ambivalent sexism (including both benevolent and hostile forms) and disordered eating in Chinese women. Hostile sexism refers to overtly negative and antagonistic attitudes toward women, while benevolent sexism involves subjectively positive but patronizing beliefs. The research examined whether women's endorsement of these sexist beliefs is associated with self-objectification and increased appearance comparisons on social networking sites (SNSs), which link to disordered eating. Furthermore, the research explored the moderating role of partner intimacy in romantic relationships.
methodsA sample of 761 Chinese college women completed the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, subscales of the Eating Disorder Inventory, the Self-Objectification Questionnaire, and the Social Network Site Appearance Comparison Scale. Among these participants, 253 women in romantic relationships provided additional self-reports on partner intimacy. Data were analyzed using Hayes' Process Macro Model 6 to test the serial mediation effects (via self-objectification and appearance comparison on SNSs) and Model 85 to test the moderated serial mediation model, where partner intimacy was specified as a moderator.
resultsThe results revealed that both benevolent sexism (b = 0.252, 95% CI [0.14, 0.36]) and hostile sexism (b = 0.162, 95% CI [0.05, 0.27]) were positively associated with disordered eating. These associations were mediated by self-objectification and sequentially through self-objectification and appearance comparison on SNSs. Notably, partner intimacy moderated the path from benevolent sexism to self-objectification (b = 0.095, 95% CI [0.01, 0.18]) and the effects from benevolent sexism to appearance comparison on SNSs (b = - 0.023, 95% CI [-0.04, -0.00]).
conclusionsThese findings suggest that women's endorsement of ambivalent sexism is associated with disordered eating through self-objectification and appearance-related social comparison, and that romantic relationships are a critical context in which benevolent sexism is linked to women's psychological processes. By integrating ambivalent sexism with objectification theory, this study advances understanding of how gendered beliefs intersect with relationship contexts in relation to women's disordered eating in contemporary China.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.