Eating disorders in a nonclinical adolescent population: implications for treatment

The present study investigates the prevalence of adolescent eating disorders across gender, cultural groupings, and socioeconomic status. The Eating Attitudes Test, the Binge-Eating Questionnaire, and a demographic questionnaire were administered to students at two high schools. The results indicate a high rate of eating disorders in a nonclinical adolescent population. The rates for binge eating are comparable to those found in studies of college students--found at a younger age. With regard to SES, cross-cultural and gender findings, it is clear that eating disorders cross socioeconomic class and ethnic groups, and have a higher rate of occurrence in males than previously reported. Given such high rates of eating problems in a nonclinical population, the issue of prevention and early detection must be addressed. Additionally, more specific information on male eating disorders is needed.     

Characteristics of adolescents at risk for compulsive overeating on a brief screening test

As part of a large survey of addictive behavior in high school students, 43% of a sample of 278 (26% of the males, 57% of the females) scored above the cutoff point set by Overeaters Anonymous on their scale for assessing compulsive overeating. While this at-risk group did not report poorer general adjustment, health, or school achievement than did the students not at risk, they did significantly more often perceive their life quality and relationship with the person closest to them as less positive. The at-risk subsample indicated the defensive effectiveness of overeating in their significantly more frequent report of dissociative experiences while eating, and less severe ratings of insecurity, worrying, and daydreaming. One of the most salient findings was the at-risk students' more frequent report of addictive problems in their parents (overeating, alcohol and drug use, and gambling).     

A comparison of two measures of egocentrism

This study examined the relationship between two prominent measures of egocentrism, Enright's Adolescent Egocentrism Scale (AES) and Elkind's Imaginary Audience Scale (IAS), in a sample of 458 adolescents, between 10 and 15 years old. Both correlational and factor analyses indicated that the two measures assess distinctly different phenomena. As predicted, IAS scores were correlated with self-reported levels of shyness, nervousness, and social skills. These results provide partial evidence for the validity of the IAS as a measure of self-consciousness, though not necessarily egocentrism per se. The validity of the AES was not examined.     

The emotions of professional writers

In this study, 24 professional writers completed a short pencil-and-paper questionnaire on which they indicated how they felt before, at a pause, and after specific writing episodes. The intensity with which they experienced 20 emotions was assessed, as was the frequency with which these emotions were experienced when writing in general. Results indicated that the professionals experienced positive emotions significantly more often when writing in general than they experienced either negative-active or negative-passive emotions. Negative-passive emotions such as boredom, shame, and shyness were particularly rare and weak. During the actual writing process, positive emotions tended to intensify, whereas negative-passive and negative-active emotions resisted change. Sponsorship of writing had little impact on the quality of emotions experienced during the process. The professional poets, however, experienced negative-active emotions significantly more often when writing in general than did the prose writers.     

The MMPI and clinical diagnosis: a comparison of classification system outcomes with discharge diagnoses

This study examined the agreement or congruence rate between clinical-discharge diagnoses rendered by a psychiatrist, and admission and discharge MMPI-derived diagnoses from four diagnostic classification systems that have been developed for the MMPI. The four classification systems included a simple high-point code based on the most elevated clinical scale in the profile, the Henrichs revision of the Meehl-Dahlstrom rules, the Goldberg equations, and a system developed by Lachar. Subjects consisted of 150 patients selected from a larger pool of patients who had completed a 9-week adult residential treatment program. Overall, this study yielded modest hit rates between 26% and 34% for MMPI-derived diagnoses and psychiatric diagnoses across the various classification systems. In addition, stability of MMPI-based diagnoses from admission to discharge assessments ranged from 48% to 51% depending on the classification system employed. Findings are discussed in terms of their implications for the use of the MMPI in patient diagnosis. It is recommended that the MMPI be used in conjunction with other sources of clinical and test information in deriving clinical diagnoses.     

Biography, Narrative, and Lives: An Introduction

ABSTRACT The purpose of this special issue of the Journal of Personality is to spotlight some of the more fruitful ways in which contemporary personality psychologists are collecting, analyzing, and discerning stories about persons' lives The issue focuses both on current approaches to psychobiography and on new uses of life narratives in social research     

The Public and Private Use of Consensus-Raising Excuses

ABSTRACT Two experiments tested the proposition that people use consensus-raising excuses more in private than in public when the audience has information that could refute subjects' claims about others In Experiment 1, subjects received success or failure feedback and made public or private attributions to ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck In Experiment 2, subjects received positive or negative feedback and evaluated themselves and others on the trait Task difficulty attributions and evaluations of others are consensus-raising measures Consistent with our hypothesis, subjects receiving negative feedback in Experiment 1 claimed that the task was more difficult, and in Experiment 2 evaluated the other more negatively in private than in public.