4.2 Article

'Feeling fat,' eating pathology, and eating pathology-related impairment in young men and women

期刊

EATING DISORDERS
卷 29, 期 5, 页码 523-538

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10640266.2019.1695451

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that in a sample of young adults, 'feeling fat' independently contributes to eating pathology, especially in women. Symptom severity did not moderate the relationship between 'feeling fat' and either dependent variable.
'Feeling fat' has received little empirical attention despite clinical recognition as an eating disorder maintenance factor. This experience also occurs in non-clinical populations and may relate to elements of subclinical eating pathology. The present study examined whether 'feeling fat' independently contributes to eating pathology and eating pathology-related impairment, over and above over-evaluation of weight and shape and dysphoria. University students (N = 990; 54.3% female) completed questionnaires measuring these constructs. Moderated multiple hierarchical regression analyses evaluated 'feeling fat''s unique contribution to eating pathology and impairment, and the moderating effects of gender and eating disorder symptom severity. 'Feeling fat' accounted for significant unique variance in eating pathology, but not eating pathology-related impairment, over and above over-evaluation of weight and shape and dysphoria. The relationship between 'feeling fat' and eating pathology-related impairment was stronger in women than in men. Symptom severity did not moderate the relationship between 'feeling fat' and either dependent variable. 'Feeling fat' distinctly relates to eating pathology in a sample of young adults, suggesting that 'feeling fat' deserves attention in individuals without eating disorders. Future research should longitudinally investigate the direction of the relationship between 'feeling fat' and eating pathology and examine mechanisms of gender differences in 'feeling fat.'

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

4.2
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