Bulimia: A descriptive survey of 316 cases

Johnson, Craig; Stuckey, Marilyn; Lewis, D B A Linda; Schwartz, Donald M.

doi:10.1002/1098-108x(198223)2:1<3::aid-eat2260020102>3.0.co;2-k

Cited by 215 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The two groups were well matched on all the variables that we targeted: age, occupational status, educational status, marital status, and income level. Our bulimic sample was similar to populations previously described by other investigators (Johnson, Stuckey, Lewis, Schwartz, 1982;Mitchell, Hatsukami, Eckert, & Pyle, 1985).…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 86%

Social impairment in bulimia

Herzog

Keller²,

Lavori³

et al. 1987

Int. J. Eat. Disord.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Social Adjustment Scale‐Self‐Report (SAS‐SR) was used to compare the social adjustment of 30 bulimic women with 30 female controls of similar age, level of education, economic class, and marital status. The bulimic population was significantly more impaired than the control group on the work, social/leisure, extended family, and overall subscales of the SAS‐SR. There were 68% of the bulimics who scored within the clinically impaired range on at least one of the subscales compared with 13% of the controls.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 86%

Social impairment in bulimia

Herzog

Keller²,

Lavori³

et al. 1987

Int. J. Eat. Disord.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, bulimic women vary greatly regarding the nature and extent of associated psychopathology. Some bulimic women do not exhibit any other psychiatric symptoms aside from those subsumed under the diagnosis ofbulimia (Johnson, Stuckey, Lewis, & Schwartz, 1982), whereas others show multiple types of psychopathology (Garner & Garfinkel, 1985;Garner, Garfinkel, & O'Shaughnessy, 1985;Hudson, Laffer, & Pope, 1982;Hudson, Pope, & Jonas, 1984;Lacey, 1982;Wallach & Lowenkopf, 1984). The implications of this heterogeneity for identifying risk factors are crucial.…”

Section: Toward An Understanding Of Risk Factors For Bulimiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward an understanding of risk factors for bulimia.

Striegel‐Moore¹,

Silberstein²,

Rodin³

1986

American Psychologist

968

587

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article is to integrate diverse research efforts in an attempt to move toward an understanding of risk factors for bulimia. For this task, three questions in particular require attention. Because 90% of bulimics are women, a first question to address is, Why women? Second, despite the high prevalence of dieting and weight concerns among women in general, it is still a minority who evidence the clinical syndrome of bulimia, leading to the question, Which women in particular? These questions are considered from a range of perspectivesusociocultural, developmental, psychological, and biological Third, the rapidly increasing prevalence of bulimia in recent years raises yet another question, Why now? Our analysis points to research questions that must be examined before we can expand our understanding of the etiology of bulimia.

show abstract

“…Studies of locus of control evidenced bulimics with a higher degree of external control than comparison subjects (Allerdissen, Florin and Rost, 1981;Rose, Neuhaus and Florin, 1982). Interpersonal situations that require expression of feelings, conflict resolution or assertion skills are problematic ~or women with bulimia and often trigger binge eating (Johnson et al, 1982). Consequently, impairment in family and other relationships has been reported (Norman and Herzog, 1984).…”

Section: --------------------------------------------------mentioning

confidence: 99%