4.4 Article

Rank Perception and Self-Evaluation in Eating Disorders

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EATING DISORDERS
卷 47, 期 5, 页码 543-552

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/eat.22261

关键词

eating disorders; attention; implicit self-esteem; social rank; shame

资金

  1. Department of Health NIHR [RP-PG-0606-1043]
  2. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health
  3. Region Abruzzo (RECO-TESSC Project)
  4. Succeed Foundation
  5. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [RP-PG-0606-1043] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Heightened sensitivity to social comparison and negative self-evaluation have been implicated in the development and maintenance of eating disorders (EDs). This study used behavioral tasks, as well as self-report measures, to examine processing of social rank-related cues and implicit self-concept in participants with EDs. Method: Fifty healthy participants (HCs), 46 people with an ED, and 22 people recovered from an ED (REC) undertook an attentional bias task using social rank-related cues and an implicit self-evaluation task. In addition, they completed self-report measures of social comparison, submissive behavior, and shame. Results: People with EDs showed vigilance toward social rank-related stimuli and lower implicit positive self-evaluation than HCs. Self-report data confirmed the behavioral findings and showed that people with EDs had higher levels of unfavorable social comparison, submissive behaviors, and external and internal shame than HCs. People who had recovered from an ED showed an intermediate profile between the two groups. Discussion: People with EDs have heightened sensitivity to social rank-related cues and impaired self-evaluation at an automatic level of processing. Some of these biases remain in people who have recovered. Interventions which aim to remediate social threat sensitivity and negative bias about self and others might be of benefit in EDs. (C) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据