Suchergebnisse

AbstractIndividuals high in attachment anxiety often experience persistent negative self-perceptions and heightened sensitivity toward perceived relationship threats. These characteristics may extend into past romantic relationships. This study examined whether individual differences in attachment style predict self-evaluations and relationship social comparison frequency. Two hundred and fifty-nine individuals rated themselves, their partner, and their current partner's ex-partner (CPE) or their ex-partner's current partner (ECP) on several dimensions. Individuals high in attachment anxiety experienced more relationship uncertainty but were not less satisfied than individuals low in attachment anxiety. They also made more comparisons in general and to relationships involving an ex-partner, and viewed themselves less positively than they viewed their CPE/ECP. Findings are discussed with respect to the influence that past relationships might hold over anxiously attached individuals' current relationships.

Individuals who empathize and share outcomes with their partner are likely to react more positively to upward comparisons (UCs) than downward comparisons (DCs). Three studies examined responses to comparisons in romantic relationships. Participants reported more positive affect following UCs than DCs; positive affect was also predicted by empathy and shared outcomes. Relationship‐maintaining responses were predicted by empathy and shared outcomes: Participants who felt boosted by sharing their partner's success were less likely to report distancing themselves from the partner following UCs, and participants who felt concern for their partner's failure were especially likely to help the partner following DCs. Our findings suggest that individuals respond functionally to these comparisons by focusing on protecting the relationship rather than protecting the self.

Background Eating disorders (EDs) are highly complex mental illnesses associated with significant medical complications. There are currently knowledge gaps in research relating to the epidemiology, aetiology, treatment, burden, and outcomes of eating disorders. To clearly identify and begin addressing the major deficits in the scientific, medical, and clinical understanding of these mental illnesses, the Australian Government Department of Health in 2019 funded the InsideOut Institute (IOI) to develop the Australian Eating Disorder Research and Translation Strategy, the primary aim of which was to identify priorities and targets for building research capacity and outputs. A series of rapid reviews (RR) were conducted to map the current state of knowledge, identify evidence gaps, and inform development of the national research strategy. Published peer-reviewed literature on DSM-5 listed EDs, across eight knowledge domains was reviewed: (1) population, prevalence, disease burden, Quality of Life in Western developed countries; (2) risk factors; (3) co-occurring conditions and medical complications; (4) screening and diagnosis; (5) prevention and early intervention; (6) psychotherapies and relapse prevention; (7) models of care; (8) pharmacotherapies, alternative and adjunctive therapies; and (9) outcomes (including mortality). While RRs are systematic in nature, they are distinct from systematic reviews in their aim to gather evidence in a timely manner to support decision-making on urgent or high-priority health concerns at the national level. Results Three medical science databases were searched as the primary source of literature for the RRs: Science Direct, PubMed and OVID (Medline). The search was completed on 31st May 2021 (spanning January 2009-May 2021). At writing, a total of 1,320 articles met eligibility criteria and were included in the final review. Conclusions For each RR, the evidence has been organised to review the knowledge area and identify gaps for further research and investment. The series of RRs (published separately within the current series) are designed to support the development of research and translation practice in the field of EDs. They highlight areas for investment and investigation, and provide researchers, service planners and providers, and research funders rapid access to quality current evidence, which has been synthesised and organised to assist decision-making.