Well-being : the foundations of hedonic psychology

What good is self-control? We incorporated a new measure of individual differences in self-control into two large investigations of a broad spectrum of behaviors. The new scale showed good internal consistency and retest reliability. Higher scores on self-control correlated with a higher grade point average, better adjustment (fewer reports of psychopathology, higher self-esteem), less binge eating and alcohol abuse, better relationships and interpersonal skills, secure attachment, and more optimal emotional responses. Tests for curvilinearity failed to indicate any drawbacks of so-called overcontrol, and the positive effects remained after controlling for social desirability. Low self-control is thus a significant risk factor for a broad range of personal and interpersonal problems.

/pdf/high-self-control-predicts-good-adjustment-less-pathology-19qckrshli.pdf

High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success.

Reanalyses of a number of studies of self-reported mood indicate that Positive and Negative Affect consistently emerge as the first two Varimax rotated dimensions in orthogonal factor analyses or as the first two second-order factors derived from oblique solutions. The two factors emerged with varyi

Toward a consensual structure of mood.

This natural experiment provides substantial evidence for the following major themes, which are based on a cognitively oriented, process-centered theory of stress and coping: First, a stressful encounter should be viewed as a dynamic, unfolding process, not as a static, unitary event. Emotion and coping (including the use of social support) were assessed at three stages of a midterm examination: the anticipation stage before the exam, the waiting stage after the exam and before grades were announced, and after grades were posted. For the group as a whole there were significant changes in emotions and coping (including the use of social support) across the three stages. Second, people experience seemingly contradictory emotions and states of mind during every stage of an encounter. In this study, for example, subjects experienced both threat emotions and challenge emotions. The complexity of emotions and their cognitive appraisals reflects ambiguity regarding the multifaceted nature of the exam and its meanings, especially during the anticipation stage. Third, coping is a complex process. On the average, subjects used combinations of most of the available forms of problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping at every stage of the exam. Different forms of coping were salient during the anticipation and waiting stages. Problem-focused coping and emphasizing the positive were more prominent during the former, and distancing more prominent during the latter. Finally, despite normatively shared emotional reactions at each stage, substantial individual differences remained. Using selected appraisal and coping variables, and taking grade point averages (GPA) into account, approximately 48% of the variances in threat and challenge emotions at the anticipation stage was explained. Controlling for variance due to the grade received, appraisal, and coping variables accounted for 28% of the variance in positive and negative emotions at the outcome stage. Including grade, 57% of the variance in positive emotions at outcome and 61% of the negative emotions at outcome were explained. The essence of stress, coping, and adapta- changing meaning or significance of what is tion is change. The emotions one experiences happening as the encounter unfolds. Coping, in a stressful encounter, for example, are too, is characterized by change. One might characterized by flux. At first one may feel at first engage in avoidant or denial-like strat

/pdf/if-it-changes-it-must-be-a-process-study-of-emotion-and-2un38zpf77.pdf

If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination.

Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review.

The development and validation of a new measure, the Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI) is described. The EDI is a 64 item, self-report, multiscale measure designed for the assessment of psychological and behavioral traits common in anorexia nervosa (AN) and bulimia. The EDI consists of eight sub-scales measuring: 1) Drive for Thinness, 2) Bulimia, 3) Body Dissatisfaction, 4) Ineffectiveness, 5) Perfectionism, 6) Interpersonal Distrust, 7) Interoceptive Awareness and 8) Maturity Fears. Reliability (internal consistency) is established for all subscales and several indices of validity are presented. First, AN patients (N = 113) are differentiated from female comparison (FC) subjects (N = 577) using a cross-validation procedure. Secondly, patient self-report subscale scores agree with clinician ratings of subscale traits. Thirdly, clinically recovered AN patients score similarly to FCs on all subscales. Finally, convergent and discriminate validity are established for subscales. The EDI was also administered to groups of normal weight bulimic women, obese, and normal weight but formerly obese women, as well as a male comparison group. Group differences are reported and the potential utility of the EDI is discussed.

Development and validation of a multidimensional eating disorder inventory for anorexia nervosa and bulimia.

This article examines the measurement of short-lived (i.e., state) changes in self-esteem. A new scale is introduced that is sensitive to manipulations designed to temporarily alter self-esteem, and 5 studies are presented that support the scale's validity. The State Self-Esteem Scale (SSES) consists of 20 items modified from the widely used Janis-Field Feelings of Inadequacy Scale (Janis & Field, 1959). Psychometric analyses revealed that the SSES has 3 correlated factors: performance, social, and appearance self-esteem. Effects of naturally occurring and laboratory failure and of clinical treatment on SSES scores were examined; it was concluded that the SSES is sensitive to these sorts of manipulations. The scale has many potential uses, which include serving as a valid manipulation check index, measuring clinical change in self-esteem, and untangling the confounded relation between mood and self-esteem.

Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem.

Dieting and binging: A causal analysis.

Anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa have emerged as the predominant eating disorders. We review the recent research evidence pertaining to the development of these disorders, including sociocultural factors (e.g., media and peer influences), family factors (e.g., enmeshment and criticism), negative affect, low self-esteem, and body dissatisfaction. Also reviewed are cognitive and biological aspects of eating disorders. Some contributory factors appear to be necessary for the appearance of eating disorders, but none is sufficient. Eating disorders may represent a way of coping with problems of identity and personal control.

Causes of Eating Disorders

It was hypothesized that individual differences in eating behavior based on the distinction between obese and normal subjects could be demonstrated within a population of normal subjects classified as to the extent of restraint chronically exercised with respect to eating. Restrained subjects resembled the obese behaviorally, and unrestrained subjects resembled normals. This demonstration was effected in the context of a test .of the psychosomatic hypothesis of obesity. The results indicated that although some individuals may eat more when anxious, there is little empirical support for the notion that eating serves to reduce anxiety. An explanation for this apparent inconsistency was offered. The role of anxiety as a possible causal agent in obesity has recently been subjected to experimental analysis. Schachter, Goldman, and Gordon (1968) hypothesized that although anxiety would decrease eating in normal-weight subjects by inhibiting gastric contractions and releasing sugar into the bloodstream, it would have little if any effect on the obese, who do not eat on the basis of internal physiological state. These predictions were confirmed, with normal-weight subjects eating substantially less (34%) when anxious and the obese eating nonsignificantly more (15%). Schachter et al. (1968) concluded that the psychosomatic hypothesis of obesity —that the obese in effect confuse hunger with negative affect (Bruch, 1961) and thus overeat in response to aversive emotional states (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1957)— had failed to find confirmation. Obese subjects did not eat more when anxious and did not exhibit significant anxiety reduction as a consequence of eating.

Janet Polivy

Papers

Development and validation of a multidimensional eating disorder inventory for anorexia nervosa and bulimia.

Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem.

Dieting and binging: A causal analysis.

Causes of Eating Disorders

Anxiety, restraint, and eating behavior.