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).     

Psychoanalysis, psychoanalytic science, and psychoanalytic research--1986

The present standing of psychoanalysis as a science and the vitality of psychoanalytic research effort are reviewed. The two are interdependent, since the possibilities for empirical research rest on the necessary assumption that psychoanalysis is indeed enough a science to be susceptible to knowledge advance by the (research) methods of science. Concerning our status as a science, I review attacks on our scientific credentials (both from within our ranks and without) by the logical positivists, by the hermeneuticists (a rubric comprising a variety of hermeneutic, phenomenological, exclusively subjectivistic, and/or linguistically based conceptualizations of our field), and the most recent by the philosopher of science, Adolf Grünbaum. I try to demonstrate what I feel to be the failure of each of these assaults, and why I feel there is no reason to see psychoanalysis as anything other than a scientific psychology and, therefore, in theory amenable to empirical research approaches. I then review the history and the current status of these systematic research efforts in psychoanalysis, and the reasons why these have been far less in scope and in accomplishment than has been possible or than has been needed. Here I have focused especially on research involving technique and our theory of change and cure--i.e., research on the analytic process; on what changes take place (outcome) and how those changes come about or are brought about (process).