Hunger Games: Associations between Core Eating Disorder Symptoms and Responses to Rejection by Peers during Competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with eating disorder (ED) symptoms are sensitive to social threat and report maladaptive interpersonal styles that may contribute to and exacerbate negative evaluation from others. Research in this area has relied primarily on self-report. The current study examined associations between behavioral responses to social threat and core ED symptoms using a behavioral paradigm. Based on previous findings that individuals with binge eating report being more reactive and confrontational, whereas individuals with dietary restriction tend to be more submissive and avoidant of conflict, we hypothesized that binge eating would be associated with a greater tendency to retaliate against rejection perpetrators, whereas dietary restriction would be associated with a lower tendency to retaliate when rejected. Undergraduate women (N = 132) completed a self-report measure of ED symptoms and participated in an online “Survivor”-type game in which they voted to either accept or reject computerized coplayers, while also receiving acceptance or rejection feedback from others. Neither ED symptom was associated with how often participants retaliated against coplayers who rejected them. However, dietary restriction was related to morerejection votes overall (i.e., the tendency to reject others regardless of how others voted). Findings suggest that individuals with dietary restriction may rely on a maladaptive defensive strategy aimed at pre-empting rejection, or alternatively, have difficulty shifting from habitual self-isolating behavior that results from over-involvement with restricting symptoms. Interventions targeting hypersensitivity to social threat or interpersonal flexibility may help reduce interpersonal stress and mitigate its impact on restricting symptoms.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".