You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Biological, Psychological, and Sociocultural Factors Contributing to the Drive for Muscularity in Weight-Training Men
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01992 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Catharina Schneider, Laura Rollitz, Martin Voracek, Kristina Hennig-Fast |
| Abstract |
The drive for muscularity and associated behaviors (e.g., exercising and dieting) are of growing importance for men in Western societies. In its extreme form, it can lead to body image concerns and harmful behaviors like over-exercising and the misuse of performance-enhancing substances. Therefore, investigating factors associated with the drive for muscularity, especially in vulnerable populations like bodybuilders and weight trainers can help identify potential risk and protective factors for body image problems. Using a biopsychosocial framework, the aim of the current study was to explore different factors associated with drive for muscularity in weight-training men. To this purpose, German-speaking male weight trainers (N = 248) completed an online survey to determine the extent to which biological, psychological, and sociocultural factors contribute to drive for muscularity and its related attitudes and behaviors. Using multiple regression models, findings showed that media ideal body internalization was the strongest positive predictor for drive for muscularity, while age (M = 25.9, SD = 7.4) held the strongest negative association with drive for muscularity. Dissatisfaction with muscularity, but not with body fat, was related to drive for muscularity. The fat-free mass index, a quantification of the actual degree of muscularity of a person, significantly predicted drive for muscularity-related behavior but not attitudes. Body-related aspects of self-esteem, but not global self-esteem, were significant negative predictors of drive for muscularity. Since internalization of media body ideals presented the highest predictive value for drive for muscularity, these findings suggest that media body ideal internalizations may be a risk factor for body image concerns in men, leading, in its most extreme form to disordered eating or muscle dysmorphia. Future research should investigate the relations between drive for muscularity, age, body composition, internalization, dissatisfaction with muscularity and body-related self-esteem using longitudinal study designs. Limitations concern the cross-sectional design of the study, self-reported body composition measures and the homogeneity of the sample. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 115 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 10% |
| Researcher | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 17% |
| Unknown | 38 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 26 | 23% |
| Sports and Recreations | 12 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Unknown | 41 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 December 2016.
All research outputs
#14,280,301
of 23,332,901 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#14,549
of 31,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,523
of 423,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#236
of 402 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,332,901 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,035 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 423,149 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 402 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.