ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
What size and shape am I?
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Body image disturbance is conceptualised as arising from the interaction between perceptual and attitudinal components, yet the psychological complexity embedded within the attitudinal domain remains underexplored. This study tested an integrated model of perceptual, attitudinal, and interoceptive influences on women's judgments of their own body size. Methods: In a sample of 269 adult women, behavioural measures of body size estimation were combined with network analysis, exploratory factor analysis, and regression modelling to distinguish psychological processes exerting direct versus indirect effects on self-estimated body size. Results: Three central findings emerged. First, contraction bias in perceptual body size estimation was robustly replicated, with lower-BMI individuals overestimating and higher-BMI individuals underestimating their body size. Second, attitudinal body image concerns independently shifted self-estimated body size upward across the BMI range, acting additively rather than interactively with contraction bias. Third, the network and factor analyses demonstrated that attitudinal body image comprised four interconnected domains: Body Image, Mood, Interoceptive Sensibility, and Sociocultural Pressure. We found important connections between Body Image and Interoceptive Sensibility facilitated by Mood acting as a bridging intermediary. However, the regression analysis showed that only Body Image, not Interoceptive Sensibility, Sociocultural Pressure, or Mood, exerted direct effects on self-estimates of body size. Conclusion: Attitudinal body image is multidimensional in structure, but only the Body Image domain directly influences behavioural judgments of body size; interoceptive sensibility and other attitudinal factors operate indirectly within the broader body image system. The two-component perceptual-attitudinal model remains a powerful framework for explaining body size judgments, while network methods clarify how the contributing psychological processes are organised.
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.