Association of perceived stress, social support and self-esteem with disordered eating due to Alexithymia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Stress, negative emotional states, emotional disorders, low self-esteem, and feelings of loneliness and isolation are among contributing factors, which can trigger disordered eating behaviors. Aim: The present study aimed to investigate the association of perceived stress, social support, and self-esteem with disordered eating due to alexithymia. Method: In this correlational study with structural equation modeling, the statistical population consisted of individuals, who were referred to Baraka Obesity Treatment Clinic in Tehran, Iran, during 2021-2022. A total of 303 people with a body mass index above 30 kg/m2 were selected using the convenience sampling method. Data were collected using the Perceived Stress Questionnaire by Cohen et al. (1983), Perceived Social Support Scale by Zimmet et al. (1988), Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale (1965), Alexithymia Scale by Bagby et al. (1994), and Eating Behavior Questionnaire by Van Stein and colleagues (1986). The structural equation modeling method was used to analyze the data. Results: The results of the structural equation modeling indicated the significant direct effects of perceived stress (β=0.22, P<0.01), social support (β=-0.25, P<0.01), and self-esteem (β=-0.21, P<0.01) on disordered eating. Also, the indirect effects of perceived stress (Z=7.69, P<0.01), social support (Z=-6.13, P<0.01), and self-esteem (Z=-6.46, P<0.01) were significant on disordered eating through alexithymia. Conclusion: The results of the present study showed that factors, such as the level of stress, social support, self-esteem, and identifying and expressing one’s emotions, can affect disordered eating behaviors. Therefore, by reducing stress and alexithymia and improving social support and self-esteem, disordered eating behaviors are speculated to decrease in obese people.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".