Studied by 0 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
Possible cognitive reasons behind bulimia
negative self-image
poor body image
tendency to perceive events as more stressful than most people would
(Vanderlinden et al. 1 992)
perfectionism.
the body-image distortion hypothesis
many eating disorder patients suffer from the delusion that they are fat.
overestimate their body size.
Slade and Brodie (1994)
AMRCE
aimed to investigate the relationship between body image distortion and eating disorders, particularly bulimia.
Slade and Brodie (1994)
AMRCE
Participants: Individuals with bulimia and a control group without eating disorders.
Procedure: Participants were assessed for their perception of body size using visual and cognitive tasks.
Perceptual Body Size Estimation:
Participants were asked to estimate the size of different body parts or their overall body size using visual and tactile tasks.
This was done to determine whether they perceived their body as larger than it actually was.
Cognitive and Emotional Measures:
Self-report questionnaires were used to assess levels of body dissatisfaction and attitudes toward body shape.
Psychological assessments measured factors like self-esteem, perfectionism, and societal influences on body image.
Comparison Between Perception and Cognition:
Researchers compared whether body size overestimation correlated more strongly with actual perceptual distortion or with negative thoughts and feelings about one’s body.
Slade and Brodie (1994)
AMRCE
The study found that body image disturbance in bulimia is not primarily due to a perceptual distortion (i.e., actually seeing oneself as larger than one is).
Instead, cognitive and emotional biases played a more significant role in body dissatisfaction.
Participants with bulimia tended to judge their body size inaccurately due to negative self-perception, societal pressure, and emotional distress, rather than a misperception of physical reality.
Slade and Brodie (1994)
AMRCE
The findings challenged the traditional belief that body image distortion in eating disorders is solely due to visual misperception.
Instead, body dissatisfaction in bulimia is largely driven by cognitive distortions, unrealistic beauty standards, and emotional factors like low self-esteem and anxiety.
This suggests that treatment should focus more on cognitive restructuring (e.g., changing negative thought patterns) rather than just correcting perceptual distortions.
Slade and Brodie (1994)
AMRCE
Strengths:
✔ Shift in Perspective: The study contributed to a deeper understanding of body image disturbance, influencing modern psychological treatments for bulimia.
✔ Clinical Implications: Findings have been used to develop Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) strategies, which target negative self-perceptions and body-related anxieties.
✔ Experimental Approach: The study combined objective perception tests with subjective psychological assessments, offering a more comprehensive analysis.
Limitations:
❌ Small Sample Size: If the study had a limited number of participants, its findings might not generalize to all individuals with bulimia.
❌ Self-Report Bias: Some data came from self-reported questionnaires, which can be influenced by social desirability (participants might underreport or exaggerate their feelings).
❌ Not Accounting for Biological Factors: While the study emphasized cognitive aspects, biological and neurological factors (such as brain chemistry, hormones, or genetics) were not explored in-depth.
❌ Focus on Bulimia Only: The study’s conclusions might not fully apply to other eating disorders like anorexia nervosa, where perceptual distortion may play a bigger role.
cognitive disinhibition.
This occurs because of dichotomous thinkingan all-or-nothing approach to judging oneself. Bulimics follow very strict dieting rules in order to reach the weight that they feel is ideal.
Polivy and Herman (1985)
AMRCE
aimed to investigate the relationship between dietary restraint and binge eating behaviors
whether restrained eaters (chronic dieters) are more susceptible to binge eating when they perceive a loss of control over their eating.
Polivy and Herman (1985)
AMRCE
IV 1 = Restrained vs. unrestrained eaters
IV 2= Milkshake vs no milkshake
DV= Amount of food consumed
to examine whether a loss of dietary control (preloading) would lead to binge eating.
Stg. 1: manipulation of control over eating
iv2.
stg. 2: all participants were given free access to food (such as cookies or ice cream), and their eating behavior was observed.
Polivy and Herman (1985)
AMRCE
Restrained eaters who had consumed the milkshake (and thus believed their diet was already "ruined") ate significantly more than unrestrained eaters.
Unrestrained eaters did not show the same excessive eating pattern after preloading.
This suggests that dietary restraint can paradoxically lead to loss of control and binge eating when dieters perceive they have broken their rules.
The findings supported the "What-the-hell effect", where a minor dietary slip leads to excessive consumption due to an "all-or-nothing" mindset.
Polivy and Herman (1985)
AMRCE
concluded that chronic dieting and restrictive eating habits contribute to binge eating.
When restrained eaters perceive a violation of their diet, they are more likely to engage in binge eating episodes due to a sense of failure and loss of control.
This cycle is common in individuals with bulimia nervosa.
Their findings suggest that rigid dietary control increases the risk of disordered eating patterns, emphasizing the need for healthier, more flexible approaches to food regulation.
Polivy and Herman (1985)
AMRCE
Strengths:
✔ Provides empirical support for dietary restraint theory – The study effectively demonstrates how strict dieting can lead to binge eating.
✔ Practical applications – Findings can be used in eating disorder prevention by promoting flexible, balanced eating habits.
✔ Controlled experimental design – The study used a well-structured method to manipulate dietary control and measure its effects.
Limitations:
✖ Artificial setting – The experiment took place in a controlled environment, which may not fully reflect real-life eating behaviors.
✖ Individual differences – Not all restrained eaters binge, suggesting that psychological factors (e.g., self-esteem, stress) may also play a role.
✖ Ethical concerns – The study involved manipulating eating behaviors, which might have caused distress in participants, especially those with existing eating concerns.
