Natalie Crino1, Stephen Touyz2, Elizabeth Rieger3. 1. Department of Medical Psychology, Westmead Hospital, Hawkesbury Road, Westmead, NSW, 2145, Australia. Natalie.crino@health.nsw.gov.au. 2. Schools of Psychology and Centre for Eating and Dieting Disorders (Boden Institute), University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 3. Research School of Psychology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The present study compared the use (and effectiveness) of cognitive self-regulation strategies in eating disordered (ED) and non-eating disordered women (non-ED), and whether ED subgroups differ in their use of avoidant/suppressive strategies and cognitive reappraisal. METHODS: The participants consisted of 90 adult patients recruited from a specialist eating disorder service and 97 adults without an ED. Cognitive self-regulation strategies were examined on a baseline self-report measure and while looking in a mirror. RESULTS: The results of this study showed that, relative to the non-ED group, ED participants engage in more worry and self-punishment and less distraction and social control strategies in general but not specifically during a body exposure task. Reappraisal strategies were equally likely to be used by clinical and non-clinical groups but participants with anorexia nervosa (AN) found them less effective during the task. Non-ED participants found distraction strategies more effective than the ED group for managing the body exposure experience. ED subgroups used avoidant/suppressive strategies and cognitive reappraisal strategies to a similar extent. CONCLUSION: The use of maladaptive self-regulation strategies, and the use and effectiveness of some of the more adaptive self-regulation strategies sets eating disorders apart from those without an eating disorder, supporting previous research in the area. Contrary to what was predicted, the results were similar across ED subgroups. The findings highlight the importance of cognitive self-regulation strategies as a focus of research and clinical intervention. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III: Case-control study.
PURPOSE: The present study compared the use (and effectiveness) of cognitive self-regulation strategies in eating disordered (ED) and non-eating disorderedwomen (non-ED), and whether ED subgroups differ in their use of avoidant/suppressive strategies and cognitive reappraisal. METHODS: The participants consisted of 90 adult patients recruited from a specialist eating disorder service and 97 adults without an ED. Cognitive self-regulation strategies were examined on a baseline self-report measure and while looking in a mirror. RESULTS: The results of this study showed that, relative to the non-ED group, ED participants engage in more worry and self-punishment and less distraction and social control strategies in general but not specifically during a body exposure task. Reappraisal strategies were equally likely to be used by clinical and non-clinical groups but participants with anorexia nervosa (AN) found them less effective during the task. Non-ED participants found distraction strategies more effective than the ED group for managing the body exposure experience. ED subgroups used avoidant/suppressive strategies and cognitive reappraisal strategies to a similar extent. CONCLUSION: The use of maladaptive self-regulation strategies, and the use and effectiveness of some of the more adaptive self-regulation strategies sets eating disorders apart from those without an eating disorder, supporting previous research in the area. Contrary to what was predicted, the results were similar across ED subgroups. The findings highlight the importance of cognitive self-regulation strategies as a focus of research and clinical intervention. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III: Case-control study.
Entities:
Keywords:
Body exposure; Body image; Cognitive behaviour therapy; Cognitive self-regulation; Eating disorders
Authors: Sara Palmieri; Giovanni Mansueto; Simona Scaini; Gabriele Caselli; Walter Sapuppo; Marcantonio M Spada; Sandra Sassaroli; Giovanni Maria Ruggiero Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-05-31 Impact factor: 4.241