Body image and the role of romantic relationships. Maria Fernanda Laus, Sebastião S. Almeida & Lori A. Klos. Cogent Psychology, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23311908.2018.1496986
Abstract: A variety of sociocultural factors have been recognized as important influences on appearance-related issues but little research has examined the intersection between romantic relationships and body image among adults. This study examined whether self-evaluative and motivational investment in appearance, overweight preoccupation, and body satisfaction differ between men and women who were involved (or not) in a romantic relationship. Moreover, we investigated the associations between relationship experiences (relationship type, relationship length, commitment, passion, and intimacy) and body image. To that, 423 men (Mage = 45.32 ± 13.86 years) and 505 women (Mage = 43.52 ± 13.07 years) completed an online survey through the SurveyMonkey Audience database in the United States, including several measures of body image and relationship functioning. Our results demonstrated that the importance given to appearance was lower among uninvolved (“single”) participants; overweight preoccupation did not differ between men and women who were involved or not in a romantic relationship; and that single men and women were more dissatisfied with their overall appearance than adults who were romantically involved but not currently cohabitating. For men and women, romantic involvement plays a pivotal role in promoting and maintaining a less negative body image. The type of relationship and its functioning are also important aspects related to body image. This study provides some context for understanding the importance of romantic situation on one’s body image.
Keywords: romantic relationships, body image, appearance investment, overweight concerns, body satisfaction, relationship quality
Bipartisan Alliance, a Society for the Study of the US Constitution, and of Human Nature, where Republicans and Democrats meet.
Saturday, July 7, 2018
No evidence for attention bias towards threat in clinical anxiety: a meta-analysis of baseline bias in attention bias modification RCTs
No evidence for attention bias towards threat in clinical anxiety: a meta-analysis of baseline bias in attention bias modification RCTs. Anne-Wil Kruijt, Sam Parsons, Elaine Fox. Pre-print 10.31234/osf.io/rfjup
Abstract
Background: Considerable effort and funding are spent on developing Attention Bias Modification (ABM) as a treatment for anxiety disorders. ABM is theorized to exert therapeutic effects through reduction of an increased attentional bias towards threat. Yet, the available meta-analytical evidence for the common assertion that clinical anxiety is characterised by this treat-related attentional bias is thin: the largest meta-analysis to date included n=337 clinically anxious individuals. We propose that baseline measurements in clinical ABM RCTs constitute a hitherto not assessed additional body of data on magnitude of biased attention in clinically anxious samples.
Method: We meta-analysed baseline dot-probe assessed bias for 1005 clinically anxious individuals enrolled in ABM RCTs.
Results: REML analysis indicated no evidence that mean bias index (BI) differs from zero (k= 13, n= 1005, mean BI = 1.8 ms, SE = 1.26 ms, p = .144, 95% CI [-0.6 - 4.3]. Additional Bayes factor analyses also supported the traditional point-nil hypothesis (BF10 = .23), whereas additional interval-based analysis indicated it unlikely that mean bias in clinical anxiety extends beyond the 0 to 5 ms interval.
Discussion: We discuss our findings with respect to strengths (larger samples, possible bypassing of publication bias), limitations (lack of control comparison, repurposing data), and theoretical and practical context. We suggest that it may be prudent to no longer classify anxious samples as being characterized by bias.
Conclusion: Clinically anxious individuals enrolled in RCTs for Attention Bias Modification are not characterized by attentional bias towards threat at baseline.
Abstract
Background: Considerable effort and funding are spent on developing Attention Bias Modification (ABM) as a treatment for anxiety disorders. ABM is theorized to exert therapeutic effects through reduction of an increased attentional bias towards threat. Yet, the available meta-analytical evidence for the common assertion that clinical anxiety is characterised by this treat-related attentional bias is thin: the largest meta-analysis to date included n=337 clinically anxious individuals. We propose that baseline measurements in clinical ABM RCTs constitute a hitherto not assessed additional body of data on magnitude of biased attention in clinically anxious samples.
Method: We meta-analysed baseline dot-probe assessed bias for 1005 clinically anxious individuals enrolled in ABM RCTs.
Results: REML analysis indicated no evidence that mean bias index (BI) differs from zero (k= 13, n= 1005, mean BI = 1.8 ms, SE = 1.26 ms, p = .144, 95% CI [-0.6 - 4.3]. Additional Bayes factor analyses also supported the traditional point-nil hypothesis (BF10 = .23), whereas additional interval-based analysis indicated it unlikely that mean bias in clinical anxiety extends beyond the 0 to 5 ms interval.
Discussion: We discuss our findings with respect to strengths (larger samples, possible bypassing of publication bias), limitations (lack of control comparison, repurposing data), and theoretical and practical context. We suggest that it may be prudent to no longer classify anxious samples as being characterized by bias.
Conclusion: Clinically anxious individuals enrolled in RCTs for Attention Bias Modification are not characterized by attentional bias towards threat at baseline.