Global/local processing style: Explaining the relationship between trait anxiety and binge eating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Anxiety is a risk factor for disordered eating, but the mechanisms by which anxiety promotes disordered eating are poorly understood. One possibility is local versus global cognitive processing style, defined as a relative tendency to attend to details at the expense of the "big picture." Anxiety may narrow attention, in turn, enhancing local and/or compromising global processing. We examined relationships between global/local processing style, anxiety, and disordered eating behaviors in a transdiagnostic outpatient clinical sample. We hypothesized that local (vs. global) processing bias would mediate the relationship between anxiety and disordered eating behaviors. METHOD: Ninety-three participants completed the eating disorder examination-questionnaire (EDE-Q), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)-trait subscale, and the Navon task (a test of processing style in which large letters are composed of smaller letters both congruent and incongruent with the large letter). The sample was predominantly female (95%) with a mean age of 27.4 years (SD = 12.1 years). RESULTS: Binge eating, but not fasting, purging, or excessive exercise, was correlated with lower levels of global processing style. There was a significant indirect effect between anxiety and binge eating via reduced global level global/local processing. DISCUSSION: In individuals with disordered eating, being more generally anxious may encourage a detailed-oriented bias, preventing individuals from maintaining the bigger picture and making them more likely to engage in maladaptive behaviors (e.g., binge eating).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".