| Literature DB >> 30687167 |
Ayoub Bouguettaya1, Tegan Cruwys2, Richard Moulding1, Ross King1, Ana-Maria Bliuc3.
Abstract
Socially prescribed perfectionism appears to drive disordered eating behaviour in young women, usually via messages from fellow women. Social psychological research suggests that framing effects can be manipulated to reduce the effect of unhealthy messages. This research used contrasting messages about perfectionism to reduce perfectionism among female dieters. We recruited 147 female dieters (M age = 25.11) for a between-subjects experimental study. While completing an online questionnaire, participants were exposed to one of three sets of blog posts, which varied in content and source. These three conditions always had one anti-perfectionism message from a woman. This was presented along with either a high perfection message from a man, a high perfectionism message from a woman, or both of these messages. After reading the blog posts, women were asked to fill out a scale assessing their levels of socially prescribed perfectionism. When participants were exposed to an anti-perfectionism message from a woman, paired with a high-perfectionism message from a man, participants showed lower socially prescribed perfectionism than when both high and anti-perfectionism messages came from two women. These findings imply that strategies designed to reduce socially prescribed perfectionism may benefit from including contrasting messages, as this may shift perceived perfectionism norms. Implications for social interventions are discussed.Entities:
Keywords: context; eating behaviour; eating disorders; perfectionism; social identity; social norms
Year: 2019 PMID: 30687167 PMCID: PMC6333663 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02703
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Descriptive statistics (Means, SD, and Cronbach’s Alpha values), N = 147.
| M (SD) | Cronbach’s Alpha | |
|---|---|---|
| Dieting intentions | 5.38 (1.17) | 0.851 |
| fSPP | 4.04 (1.26) | 0.924 |
| SOP | 5.07 (0.92) | 0.869 |
| EAT-26 scores | 62.85 (11.61) | 0.851 |
| Times dieted in past 6 months | 2.96 (2.36) | NA |
Correlations, N = 147.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Dieting intentions | ||||
| 2. fSPP | 0.208∗ | |||
| 3. SOP | 0.197∗ | 0.303∗∗ | ||
| 4. EAT-26 scores | 0.425∗∗ | 0.221∗∗ | 0.262∗∗ | |
FIGURE 1fSPP means between conditions (95% confidence intervals shown). Conditions refers to the contrasting message presented along with the female anti-perfectionism message.
Between samples t-test results comparing Condition A to B and C on fSPP (two-tailed).
| Condition | n | Mean (SD) | 95% confidence interval upper, lower | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Condition A | 39 | 3.60 (1.10) | ||
| Condition B | 49 | 4.11 (1.21) | -2.03 ( | -0.010, -1.001 |
| Condition C | 59 | 4.27 (1.34) | -2.58 ( | -0.156, -1.182 |