The Explanation of Disordered Eating: A Metatheoretical Approach

<p>Eating disorders are an increasingly serious global health problem, resulting in substantial physical and mental health costs for sufferers and their families, and for society as a whole. There has been considerable research aimed at understanding and treating these conditions. Despite this, treatment for disordered eating remains relatively poor, leaving many with ongoing suffering. Although there are many reasons why this may be the case, a possible contributor not investigated by the literature is the quality of the theoretical explanations underpinning these treatments. In this thesis, therefore, I set out to examine the quality of the current dominant explanations for disordered eating upon which best-practice treatments are based. Upon evaluation, these explanations are found to be significantly lacking in quality, leading to subsequent weaknesses in their interventions. Underlying these specific problems, I identify three common meta-theoretical issues with these explanations: (1) the poor selection and description of explanatory targets, (2) the use of single explanatory models as complete explanations (i.e., the One Best Model perspective), and (3) the lack of systematic method informing their construction. In the remainder of the thesis, I propose solutions for each of these, arguing for (1) more appropriate selection and compositional explanation of explanatory foci, (2) transition away from a unified approach to explanation toward model pluralism, and (3) the development and application of a guiding methodological framework for explanation in psychopathology. Each of these solutions represents a significant shift in our approach to understanding and explaining psychopathological conditions. Their application to the specific problem area of disordered eating is likely to result in explanations for these conditions that are more valid, comprehensive, and fruitful, thereby providing superior platforms for clinical intervention and research.</p>

The Explanation of Disordered Eating: A Metatheoretical Approach

<p>Eating disorders are an increasingly serious global health problem, resulting in substantial physical and mental health costs for sufferers and their families, and for society as a whole. There has been considerable research aimed at understanding and treating these conditions. Despite this, treatment for disordered eating remains relatively poor, leaving many with ongoing suffering. Although there are many reasons why this may be the case, a possible contributor not investigated by the literature is the quality of the theoretical explanations underpinning these treatments. In this thesis, therefore, I set out to examine the quality of the current dominant explanations for disordered eating upon which best-practice treatments are based. Upon evaluation, these explanations are found to be significantly lacking in quality, leading to subsequent weaknesses in their interventions. Underlying these specific problems, I identify three common meta-theoretical issues with these explanations: (1) the poor selection and description of explanatory targets, (2) the use of single explanatory models as complete explanations (i.e., the One Best Model perspective), and (3) the lack of systematic method informing their construction. In the remainder of the thesis, I propose solutions for each of these, arguing for (1) more appropriate selection and compositional explanation of explanatory foci, (2) transition away from a unified approach to explanation toward model pluralism, and (3) the development and application of a guiding methodological framework for explanation in psychopathology. Each of these solutions represents a significant shift in our approach to understanding and explaining psychopathological conditions. Their application to the specific problem area of disordered eating is likely to result in explanations for these conditions that are more valid, comprehensive, and fruitful, thereby providing superior platforms for clinical intervention and research.</p>

The Mental Health Effects of Student Activism: Persisting Despite Psychological Costs

As student activism continues to roil campuses, concerns have arisen about the mental health costs associated with activist-oriented civic engagement. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 42 self-identifying student activists from across the United States, this study examines how activists describe the impact of their activism on their mental health. While just under one third of the respondents perceived a positive effect, 60% of the respondents noted adverse consequences to their psychological well-being. Nevertheless, these respondents remained committed to continuing their activism. Four factors surfaced in activists’ reflections on their mental health, which, while not responsible for positive mental health outcomes, did help offset the stress, exhaustion, and guilt associated with activism. These four factors included social capital or connection to others, a sense of purpose, effecting change, and self-care and collective care. Respondents credited these factors with helping them to sustain the emotionally and physically difficult work of activism. Implications for higher education policy and practice are discussed.

What place should mental health costs play in the evaluation of public health interventions such as lockdown? In Conversation Professor Edmund Sonuga-Barke

In this podcast we talk to Professor Edmund Sonuga-Barke, Professor of Developmental Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience at King’s College London, and Editor in Chief of the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (JCPP).

Examining the Potential Mental Health Costs of Defending Victims of Bullying: a Longitudinal Analysis

It has been speculated that defending victims of bullying is stressful for youth, and may contribute to poor mental health among those who regularly intervene to defend their victimized peers. However, the extant literature is thus far primarily limited to correlational, single-informant studies. The current study examined the concurrent and prospective mental health costs (e.g., social anxiety, depressive symptoms) of peer-reported defending among 4085 youth (43.9% boys; Mage = 14.56, SD = 0.75). Moreover, we examined two potential moderators (victimization and popularity) of the association between defending and internalizing problems. Analyses revealed that there was no evidence of a direct, positive relationship between defending and internalizing symptoms. However, a positive, concurrent association was found between defending and social anxiety, but only among youth who reported that they were also victims – the association was negative among non-victimized youth. In addition, both peer-reported victimization and social status were found to moderate the longitudinal relationship between defending and later symptoms of depression. Specifically, among low-status highly victimized youth, defending was associated with an increased risk of experiencing symptoms of depression, whereas high-status youth who were rarely seen as victims reported decreased symptoms of depression at T2 if they also had a reputation for defending others. The findings suggest that defending others is likely not a risk factor for youth who are not already vulnerable and/or have the protection of high status, and may actually have a protective effect for these youth.

Country-Level Structural Stigma, School-Based and Adulthood Victimization, and Life Satisfaction Among Sexual Minority Adults: A Life Course Approach

Country-level structural stigma, defined as prejudiced population attitudes and discriminatory legislation and policies, has been suggested to compromise the wellbeing of sexual minority adults. This study explores whether and how structural stigma might be associated with sexual minorities’ school-based and adulthood experiences of victimization and adulthood life satisfaction. Using a sample of 55,263 sexual minority individuals (22% female; 53% 18–29 years old; 85% lesbian/gay, 15% bisexual) living across 28 European countries and a country-level index of structural stigma, results show that sexual minorities, especially men, reported school bullying in both higher- and lower-stigma countries. Higher rates of school bullying were found among sexual minorities living in higher-stigma countries when open about their identity at school. Past exposure to school bullying was associated with lower adulthood life satisfaction, an association partially explained by an increased risk of adulthood victimization. These findings suggest that sexual minorities living in higher-stigma countries might benefit from not being open about their sexual identity at school, despite previously established mental health costs of identity concealment, because of the reduced risk of school bullying and adverse adulthood experiences. These results provide one of the first indications that structural stigma is associated with sexual minority adults’ wellbeing through both contemporaneous and historical experiences of victimization.