↓ Skip to main content

Insecure Attachment and Disordered Eating in Women: The Mediating Processes of Social Comparison and Emotion Dysregulation

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Eating Disorders: Theory, Research and Practice, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Insecure Attachment and Disordered Eating in Women: The Mediating Processes of Social Comparison and Emotion Dysregulation
Published in
Advances in Eating Disorders: Theory, Research and Practice, February 2013
DOI 10.1080/10640266.2013.761089
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melissa Ty, Andrew J. P. Francis

Abstract

Few studies have examined potential intermediary processes linking insecure attachment with eating disorders. The purpose of this study was to compare the relative contributions of social comparison and emotion dysregulation on disordered eating symptoms within an attachment framework. Participants were 247 women living in Australia, aged between 18 and 35 years. All the study variables were moderately, positively correlated. Disordered eating was most highly correlated with emotion dysregulation, whilst correlation magnitudes with both attachment styles were comparable. Multiple mediation analysis was performed using bootstrapping procedures. Consistent with hypotheses, the mediating roles of social comparison and emotion dysregulation were supported, suggesting they may be processes through which insecure attachment influences disordered eating. Results highlight the need for intervention to focus not only on eating symptomatology, but also on the ways in which eating disorders are maintained through maladaptive self-regulatory and comparison processes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 130 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 28 21%
Student > Master 22 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 14%
Researcher 8 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 28 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 74 56%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 8%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Unspecified 5 4%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 29 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 April 2013.
All research outputs
#14,771,207
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Eating Disorders: Theory, Research and Practice
#399
of 631 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,330
of 204,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Eating Disorders: Theory, Research and Practice
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 631 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 204,716 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.