Guardia Et Al (contemp For Clincial)

Question 1

What are the 3 aims of guardia et al?

Answer 1

1. See if problems in judging body actions like if body fits through space occur when only judging own body or if overall judgement problem
2. Would those with AN be different to control in judging whether body would fit through a gap
3. Cont prev research showing that AN misjudged their ability to fit through a door that was clearly too big for them

Question 2

Exam hint

Answer 2

-use as evaluation for genes and learning as explanation of AN as contrasts both

Question 3

Method: ethics

Answer 3

-Approved by indiv ethics committee, given information sheet so could give informed consent.
-parental consent for those younger than 18

Question 4

Methods: participants

Answer 4

-50 young female ppts
-25 with AN from ED clinic
-25 w/o AN
-all students from Lille France
-matched on age and education
-checked no perceptual problems
-checked AN fulfilled the DSM-IV-R for diagnosis
-interview to see if any co-morbidities

Question 5

What was the BMI of control between?

Answer 5

-18.5 and 25

Question 6

Age of AN group compared to control

Answer 6

-AN: 23.84
-Control: 24.48

Question 7

Current body weight for AN and control

Answer 7

-AN: 15.645
-22.06

Question 8

What was the score on the body shape questionnaire for AN compared to controls

Answer 8

AN: 123.96
Control: 66.708

Question 9

Shoulder width for AN compared to controls

Answer 9

-smaller
-AN:37.66
-Control: 41.542

Question 10

What assessments were standardised?

Answer 10

-Assessments of height, shoulder width and weight

Question 11

When was weight measured?

Answer 11

-Measured changes over time in nutritional status by looking at weight before the disorder, 6 months before the study and at the time

Question 12

What data was gathered?

Answer 12

-Body dissatisfaction, concern about weight (questionnaires - body shape qu and the ED inventory - 2: drive for thinness and body dissatisfaction score)

Question 13

Procedure

Answer 13

-51 openings from 30-80cm projected onto a wall in random order
-each presented 4 times
-reached floor so looked like a door

Question 14

What were the two conditions

Answer 14

1. 1st person perspective (1PP) judged if their own body would fit through the door, imagine selves walking through, say if could walk through at normal speed and not sideways
2. 3rd person perspective (3PP) ppts had to imagine experimenter going through the opening

Question 15

Facts about the experimenter

Answer 15

-28, 1.6m, 52kg, shoulder width of 38cm, stood 5.9m from the wall

Question 16

How were results classed?

Answer 16

-Opening classed as perceived critical opening (space to walk through) when had yes response 50% of time
-ratio by dividing the perceived critical opening side by the shoulder width
-if perceived critical opening was 1 it meant that it was equal to the shoulder width so not passing through, higher than 1 meant there was safety margin, less than 1 and can’t pass through.

Question 17

Results

Answer 17

-AN sig higher score on the body shape questionnaire
-AN: overestimation of their own body size, judged they wouldn’t be able to fit through opening that was bigger than their body. 1pp perceptual ratios higher for AN group than controls
-ratio for AN: 1.321 and for controls 1.106
-AN more accurate in predicting body of the experimenter
-3pp ratios the same although avg ratio higher for AN
-sig difference in the 1pp and 3pp condition for those with AN
-in 1pp AN mean was 1.321 vs the 3pp 1.227, controls no sig diff between 1pp and 3pp
-An rated own body diff to experimenters and to how the controls rated theirs
-corr bet judgments made by AN and pre-illness weight

Question 18

Conclusions

Answer 18

-Those with AN sig overestimated their own possibility in relation to control
-felt they were larger than they were
-made errors when judging their own pass ability but not experimenter
-controls were the same when judging their own and the experimenters
-overestimation of the ratio between size of opening and shoulder width is thought to be because of their own body schema issues
-AN better at judging the experimenters size, not perceptual issue
-patients not adapted their own body image to take into account their new size, still perceive their bodies to be larger despite the visual information

Question 19

Generalisability

Answer 19

-gynocentric, 50 females. Can’t gen to men, not rep of pop as men also get AN
-ethnocentric, all from Lille France. Not rep of other cultures, cannot gen results
-all mean age below 25 and all students. Can gen to others with AN

Question 20

Reliability

Answer 20

-standardised, 2 questionnaires before study to calculate drive for thinness. Stood 5.9m from the wall, 2m high door, varying widths 30-80cm. Easy to replicate

Question 21

Applications

Answer 21

-Although perceive to be bigger than are, overestimation doesn’t extend to others those w anorexia perceive selves to be larger than control who had higher BMI. Root cause may be cognitive impairment, issues with body schema, believe to be larger than actually are, use CBT

Question 22

Validity

Answer 22

-Low mr. Not usually asked if you think you can fit through a door. Lacks task validity, don’t reflect how women with an actually feel about themselves
-low ecological, lab setting projected pic of door onto a wall, experimenter was a psychiatrist. Not rep of everyday, can’t apply applications
-low if: small sample of 50. Inc impact of anomalies
-low iv as taken from AN clinic, may know the aim of the study
-low iv: one condition, control similar to the experimenter so easier for them to guess, confounding variable

Question 23

Ethics

Answer 23

-psych harm, make judgment on body size of people who already have body image issues, make it worse
-consent: all given an info sheet and gave informed consent, may inc dc as already know the aims
-distress: weighed 6ths before, 1 month and the day of, may cause distress if they know they are gaining weight. Relapse