↓ Skip to main content

An exploratory study of creativity and eating disorders

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Eating Disorders, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
An exploratory study of creativity and eating disorders
Published in
Journal of Eating Disorders, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40337-017-0176-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruce D. Burns, Yichelle Zhang, Mareike Wieth, Stephen Touyz

Abstract

We examined whether cognitive rigidity associated with having an eating disorder generalized to creativity. One hundred twelve participants from the participant pool of an Australian university were given a measure of disordered eating (EDE-Q), asked if they had ever had a diagnosis of an eating disorder (16 reported yes), and given 3 min to generate alternative uses for a paper-clip. The alternative uses task yielded measures of creative fluency, originality, elaboration and flexibility. A logistic regression found that only lower flexibility predicted a self-reported ED diagnosis. Across the spectrum of disordered eating behaviour there was no association between creativity measures and EDE-Q global scores. Our results were consistent with previous findings of an association between cognitive inflexibility and having an ED. However we found no evidence that cognitive inflexibility generalized to creativity more broadly. Our results may lend support to Cognitive Remediation Therapy, but further study is required.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 23%
Student > Bachelor 2 15%
Other 2 15%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 46%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 8%
Arts and Humanities 1 8%
Philosophy 1 8%
Engineering 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 03 November 2017.
All research outputs
#2,199,938
of 15,023,068 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Eating Disorders
#174
of 367 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,148
of 320,609 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Eating Disorders
#33
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,023,068 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 367 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
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 320,609 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 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.