4.4 Review

Anorexia nervosa and perfectionism: A meta-analysis

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EATING DISORDERS
Volume 52, Issue 3, Pages 219-229

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/eat.23009

Keywords

anorexia nervosa; bulimia nervosa; eating disorders; meta-analysis; perfectionism

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective Despite the multitude of research surrounding anorexia nervosa (AN) and perfectionism, there is yet to be a thorough investigation comparing perfectionism in those diagnosed with AN and other eating disorders, and other psychiatric diagnoses. The current meta-analysis aimed to explore these comparisons. Method Following the Preferred Reporting Items or Systematic Reviews Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we identified empirical studies that compared maladaptive and/or adaptive perfectionism scores in those diagnosed with AN and either a non-clinical comparison group, people diagnosed with a non-AN ED, or people diagnosed with another psychological disorder (i.e., other DSM diagnoses). In total, we identified 23 studies, comprising 3,561 participants who were all female. Comparison groups extracted from the studies were a non-clinical group, bulimia nervosa (BN) diagnosis group, and another psychological diagnostic group. Results When AN maladaptive perfectionism levels were compared against the comparison groups, the results showed that those diagnosed with AN were more perfectionistic compared to the non-clinical group (g = 1.00), and the other psychiatric diagnosis group (g = 0.41). People diagnosed with AN also had higher levels of adaptive perfectionism levels compared to the non-clinical group (g = 1.24). Comparisons between those diagnosed with AN and BN were statistically non-significant for maladaptive perfectionism. Discussion Although publication bias potentially affected the psychological diagnosis group comparisons, findings suggest that maladaptive perfectionism is a factor associated with both AN and BN.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available