The perfectionism model of binge eating: Testing unique contributions, mediating mechanisms, and cross-cultural similarities using a daily diary methodology.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The perfectionism model of binge eating (PMOBE) is an integrative model explaining the link between perfectionism and binge eating. This model proposes socially prescribed perfectionism confers risk for binge eating by generating exposure to 4 putative binge triggers: interpersonal discrepancies, low interpersonal esteem, depressive affect, and dietary restraint. The present study addresses important gaps in knowledge by testing if these 4 binge triggers uniquely predict changes in binge eating on a daily basis and if daily variations in each binge trigger mediate the link between socially prescribed perfectionism and daily binge eating. Analyses also tested if proposed mediational models generalized across Asian and European Canadians. The PMOBE was tested in 566 undergraduate women using a 7-day daily diary methodology. Depressive affect predicted binge eating, whereas anxious affect did not. Each binge trigger uniquely contributed to binge eating on a daily basis. All binge triggers except for dietary restraint mediated the relationship between socially prescribed perfectionism and change in daily binge eating. Results suggested cross-cultural similarities, with the PMOBE applying to both Asian and European Canadian women. The present study advances understanding of the personality traits and the contextual conditions accompanying binge eating and provides an important step toward improving treatments for people suffering from eating binges and associated negative consequences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".