4.4 Article

Negative affect, interpersonal perception, and binge eating behavior: An experience sampling study

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EATING DISORDERS
卷 48, 期 6, 页码 715-726

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/eat.22410

关键词

binge eating; experience sampling methodology; interpersonal functioning; negative affect; interpersonal circumplex

资金

  1. Research and Development Committee at Dickinson College

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveEtiological and maintenance models for disordered eating highlight the salience of negative affect and interpersonal dysfunction. This study employed a 14-day experience sampling procedure to assess the impact of negative affect and interpersonal perceptions on binge eating behavior. MethodYoung adult women (N=40) with recurrent binge eating and significant clinical impairment recorded their mood, interpersonal behavior, and eating behaviors at six stratified semirandom intervals daily through the use of personal digital assistants. ResultsAlthough momentary negative affect was associated with binge eating behavior, average levels of negative affect over the experience sampling period were not, and interpersonal problems moderated the relationship between negative affect and binge eating. Interpersonal problems also intensified the association between momentary interpersonal perceptions and binge eating behavior. Lagged analyses indicated that previous levels of negative affect and interpersonal style also influence binge eating. DiscussionThe study findings suggest there may be important differences in how dispositional versus momentary experiences of negative affect are associated with binge eating. Results also highlight the importance of interpersonal problems for understanding relationships among negative affect, interpersonal perception, and binge eating behavior. These results offer several possibilities for attending to affective and interpersonal functioning in clinical practice. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (Int J Eat Disord 2015; 48:715-726)

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