Home work 3
Each student will conduct a search online Library resources to find 1 recent peer reviewed article (within the past 3 years) thatclosely relates to the concept: Emotional Intelligence. Your submission must include the following information in the following format:
Key Terms:
Emotional Intelligence
DEFINITION:a brief definition of the key term followed by the APA reference for the term; this does not count in the word requirement.
SUMMARY:Summarize the article in your own words- this should be in the 150-200 word range. Be sure to note the article’s author, note their credentials and why we should put any weight behind his/her opinions, research or findings regarding the key term.
ANALYSIS: Using 300-350 words, write a brief analysis, in your own words of how the article relates to the selected chapter Key Term. An analysis is not rehashing what was already stated in the article, but the opportunity for you to add value by sharing your experiences, thoughts and opinions. This is the most important part of the assignment.
REFERENCES:All references must be listed at the bottom of the submission–in APA format.
Be sure to use the headers in your submission to ensure that all aspects of the assignment are completed as required.
HUGE HINT for Journal Article Review Analysis Sections. READ THIS NOW!
You should incorporate these topics into your analysis section. If you do, then the chances of earning a high grade are GREATLY increased, in fact, this is the FIRST thing I look for when grading your papers.
1. Explain why you selected this particular article among all the articles you could have chosen on your selected term.
2. Explain why you agree or disagree with the author’s key positions in the article.
3. Explain how the article was easy or difficult to understand and why?
4. What did the author do well in your opinion? Explain.
5. Describe what you believe the author could have done better in your opinion?
6. What else should the author have included in the article and would the article benefit from a different perspective (such as from a different nationality or different industry or experience perspective). Explain.
7. What other sources or methods could the author have used to improve the research in the article? (Hint: look up the types of qualitative and types of quantitative research methods).
8. What information / in-depth study / or further research should the author focus on as a follow up to this article and why?
9. Explain what audience would gain the most benefit from your selected article and how they could apply it in their professional lives.
10. What did you personally gain from this article and how has it shaped your thinking on the topic?
11. What are the conflicting or alternative viewpoints of the author’s position? Or What additional research backs up and confirms or adds to the author’s position? (Hint: this will require you to find another peer-reviewed article that challenges, confirms, or adds to, or provides a different perspective to your chosen article.)
Next, I look for the summary, writing quality, and formatting.
I am typically very lenient on the writing because I am more focused on your content, but I will also point out how the paper could be better written. I only heavily penalize poorly written papers when there are excessive writing problems.
Why do I grade papers in this class this way?
One of the key differences in a Bachelor’s vs Master’s level is critical thinking. Bachelor’s level basically challenges direct knowledge and recall of information. The Master’s level is more about analysis and critical thinking and defending your position in a scholarly way. The analysis section of these papers is your opportunity to exercise critical thinking (that’s why I call this portion of your papers critiques).
Recalling or simply explaining the journal articles is a bachelor’s level task. When I see this in your papers I give the paper an automatic C. If the paper is poorly written it also gets an F.
To get a B or an A – you must provide a critique of the paper and the author and how well the author did and what you think of the article. The questions listed above do this properly.
I do not want to read your version of the journal article. I may as well read the journal article for myself. Just briefly describe the article in your summary section – but the analysis section is where you put in your personal critique – in other words, address the questions listed above and even add in additional thoughts based on your own creativity.
384
Eating disorders (EDs) have severe physical and mental health implications that, if left unattended, are likely to have adverse effects
on quality of life, and may even cause death.1-4 The
literature underscores the critical role of difficulties
of emotional processing among those with disor-
dered eating (DE).5 In this sense, DE (eg, self-star-
vation, purging, excessive exercise) might be used
as a dysfunctional way to regulate or provide an
escape from aversive emotional arousal.6
Despite the growing research highlighting the
role of emotion dysregulation in DE, and although
emotion regulation and emotional intelligence
(EI), or the ability to recognize ones own emotions
and those of others, are important aspects of emo-
tional management,7 few studies have addressed
the role of EI in disordered eating. EI is known
to aid in the development of subjective well-being
(SWB)8 and as such, may play a role in ameliorat-
ing the conditions of DE. A relatively new research
concept, self-compassion (SC), also has a positive
effect on SWB, including among people with an
ED.9 However, there is a lack of information on
the interconnection of these concepts among those
with DE.
We aimed to assess the differences in levels of
SC, SWB, and EI for those who self-identify as
having disorder(DEPs)ed eating perceptions and
those who do not. To this end, we tested a correla-
tion model showing the interactions of SC, EI, and
SWB with DEPs and suggesting which variable
(SC or EI) predicts SWB. We did so by comparing
2 populations, one with, and one without disor-
dered eating perceptions. One aspect of DE is per-
ceptual. DE perceptions include obsessive thinking
about food and dieting, body image dissatisfaction,
overweight preoccupation, and fear of fatness and
dieting. Although most attitudes are benign, their
presence is strongly associated with an increased
risk of developing clinical eating disorders.10
In the next section of the paper, we give a review
of the literature on our main variables EI and SC.
We then describe the study and explain our results.
We conclude with a discussion of our findings.
Vered Shenaar-Golan, Senior Lecturer, Social Work Department, Tel Hai Academic College, Tel Hai, Israel. Ofra Walter, Senior Lecturer, Depart-
ment of Education, Tel Hai Academic College, Tel Hai, Israel
Correspondence Dr Shenaar-Golan: [emailprotected]
Do Emotional Intelligence and Self-compassion
Affect Disordered Eating Perceptions?
Vered Shenaar-Golan, PhD
Ofra Walter, PhD
Background: Self-compassion (SC) allows people to cope with negative perceptions, and thus,
may act as a buffer in people with disordered eating in terms of body image and eating be-
haviors. Higher emotional intelligence (EI) may play a similar role. However, few studies have
explored their association. Objective: In this study, we tested a correlation model to determine
how SC, EI, and subjective well-being (SWB) interact and affect disordered eating (DE) percep-
tions and which variables (SC, EI) predict SWB. Method: Overall, 156 participants completed
a questionnaire assessing their levels of SC, EI, and SWB. Results: Participants who perceived
themselves as having DE had significantly lower levels of SWB and SC but a significantly higher
EI level. SWB was predicted by high scores in SC and low scores in EI. Conclusion: We propose a
mediating model explaining the contribution of EI and SC to the SWB of those with DE percep-
tions.
Key words: self-compassion; emotional intelligence; subjective well-being; disordered eating
Am J Health Behav. 2020;44(4):-384-391
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.44.4.2
Shenaar-Golan and Walter
Am J Health Behav. 2020;44(4):384-391 385 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.44.4.2
Literature Review
Emotional intelligence. EI has been investigated
for several years as a major way to explain and op-
erationalize emotion-related individual differences
and to examine their impact on individuals lives.
The perception, understanding, regulation, and use
of ones own emotions, as well as those of others,
constitute the core of EI.55 Those with EI have the
ability to carry out accurate reasoning on emotions
and can use emotions and emotional knowledge
to enhance thought.11 EI has been positively cor-
related with other measures of psychological well-
being, such as life satisfaction and happiness, and
negatively correlated with depression, loneliness,
and stress.12 People with higher EI may be more
likely to understand, regulate, and use emotional
information to cope with daily stressors and there-
fore adapt better to their environment and have
better health.13 High EI scores have also been as-
sociated with lower levels of psychopathological
symptoms, emotional and behavioral difficulties,14
and attempted self-harm.15
EI appears to be an important variable in the
health of both the general population16 and pa-
tients with mental disorders.17,18 However, there
seems to be a fundamental difference in the inter-
personal EI dimension in clinical and non-clinical
populations; the former tend to report lower scores
on intrapersonal dimensions than the latter, espe-
cially emotion regulation. They pay attention to
emotions, but they lack the ability to repair their
negative moods in daily life.19 For instance, young
women with DEPs may feel certain negative emo-
tions, but they cannot find adaptive strategies to
modulate them,20 leading to non-adaptive eating
attitudes and behaviors used in a dysfunctional
way to regulate and provide an escape from aversive
emotional arousal.6
Explorations of the ED experience suggest the
important role of DEPs in emotional regulation
and coping,19 with several authors reporting that
people with DEPs show deficits in emotional pro-
cessing, regulation, and awareness.20-22 However,
despite the growing research highlighting the role
of emotion dysregulation in EDs, and although
emotion regulation and EI are important aspects
of emotional management,7 few studies have ad-
dressed the role of EI in DEPs and its effect on
SWB.
Self-compassion and subjective well-being.
There is growing interest in SC and its potential
benefits, including decreased psychopathology and
increased well-being.23-28 SC may assist in devel-
oping coping positive behaviors and attitudes to
the self,26 given its strong empirical formulation
as an adaptive affect regulation and coping strat-
egy.29,30 As Neff defined,26 SC represents a balance
between increased positive and decreased negative
self-responses to personal struggle. Those with SC
are comforted by the recognition that suffering is
an essential part of the shared human condition.
They treat themselves with kindness, are less judg-
mental and more supportive of themselves, and can
hold painful thoughts and emotions in balanced
awareness.26,31
SC has been linked consistently with positive
mental health. It appears to be an important source
of strength and resilience in the face of life stress-
ors, such as health problems,32 problems with in-
terpersonal relationships,33 and poor physiological
functioning.34 Thus, self-compassion may repre-
sent a protective factor/ potential buffer in people
with DE in terms of body image and eating be-
haviors. A systematic review of 28 studies in both
non-clinical and clinical populations with EDs35
supports the role of self-compassion as a protec-
tive factor against poor body image and notes the
significantly lower levels of SC and greater fear of
SC among people with DE. Other researchers have
similarly found that SC predicts less DE.36,37 One
study of undergraduates31 found greater SC was as-
sociated with less concurrent ED psychopathology.
However, these researchers point out that little is
known about the mechanisms behind the associa-
tion between SC and ED psychopathology and DE
attitudes and behaviors.
In short, SC provides a unique way of relating
to the self when the tendency to engage in nega-
tive self-evaluation and the corresponding desire to
avoid the experience of negative emotions are par-
ticularly salient.26,38 A better understanding of the
relationship of SC to DE behaviors and the poten-
tial contribution of EI to their interaction can ex-
pand our understanding of the emotional processes
behind disordered eating perceptions and better
inform the treatment of those who have developed
an ED.
Do Emotional Intelligence and Self-compassion Affect Disordered Eating Perceptions?
386
METHODS
Objectives
The studys first objective was to look for statisti-
cally significant differences between levels of SC,
SWB, and EI in those who self-identified as hav-
ing DEPs and those who did not. We expected to
find significant differences; that is, people who per-
ceived themselves as having DE would score lower
in SC, EI, and SWB than those who did not. The
second objective was to build and test a correlation
model to study how SC, EI, and SWB interact and
affect DEPs. The final objective was to determine
which variables (EI, SC, DEP) could predict SWB.
Sample
The study included 156 participants, 30 men
(19.2%) and 123 women (78.8%). The age range
was 18-80 years, with a mean age of 33.92 (SD
= 12.16). Overall, 66 participants (42.3%) report-
ed DE perceptions and 90 (57.6%) did not. Par-
ticipants were divided into 2 groups: (1) Do not
think I have an eating disorder; and (2) Think I
have an eating disorder. Demographic characteris-
tics examined were age, weight, height, and marital
status.
Measures
A demographic questionnaire completed by the
participants included personal details, ie, sex, age,
weight, height, and marital status, as well as per-
ceived DE behaviors and attitudes. The participants
were asked to answer the following questions: (1)
Do you see yourself as having disordered eating?
(2) Do you often think of your weight? 3) Do
you have feelings of dissatisfaction, or preoccupa-
tion with and fear of fatness and dieting? Each
question had a yes/no answer. Participants were
classified as having disordered eating perceptions if
they answered yes to at least 2 questions.
We assessed SWB using the Personal Well-Being
Index (PWI-A).39 The PWI-A is comprised of one
question inquiring about satisfaction with life as a
whole (SWB1) and 8 items measuring satisfaction
in specific life domains: standard of living, person-
al health, achievements in life, personal relation-
ships, personal safety, community-connectedness,
future security, and religion (SWB2-8). All items
were rated on a Likert-type scale, ranging from 0 =
completely dissatisfied to 10 = completely satisfied.
Internal reliability was high, = .94
We assessed SC using the scale developed by
Neff25 who conceptualized self-compassion as com-
prising 3 interrelated dimensions: (1) self-kindness,
ie, being kind towards and understanding of one-
self, not engaging in self-judgment and criticism;
(2) mindfulness, ie, holding aversive thoughts and
feelings in balanced awareness rather than over-
identifying with them; and (3) common humanity,
ie, viewing ones experiences as a natural exten-
sion of those experienced by all individuals rather
than as isolated and separate. Subscale scores were
computed by calculating the mean of subscale item
responses. There were 6 dimensions: self-kind-
ness, self-judgment, common humanity, isolation,
mindfulness, and over-identification. Internal reli-
ability was high, = .91
We assessed EI using the Self Report Emotional
Intelligence Test (SREIT),40 a 33-item question-
naire assessing various aspects of EI. Responses are
based on a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree and are assessed on 3
broad dimensions: the appraisal and expression of
emotions, 13 items; the regulation of emotions, 10
items; and the utilization of emotions, 10 items.
The SREIT has good predictive and discriminant
validity and high reliability, with a Cronbachs al-
pha of .90. Internal reliability for this study was
= .85.
Research Procedure
We used non-probability sampling methods to
recruit participants. Possible participants were ap-
proached by the researchers and healthcare provid-
ers in the community and invited to participate on
a voluntary basis. All who responded were included.
They were also asked to forward the questionnaire
to family, friends and acquaintances, neighbors,
colleagues, and others (snowball sampling). Par-
ticipants were asked for their consent and invited
by email to respond to the studys questionnaires;
additional invitations were disseminated through
social media networks around the country. The
questionnaire was answered online using the Qual-
trics online survey system to ensure anonymity
and easy access to the questionnaire. The research
was performed in accordance with the ethical stan-
dards of the Tel Hai Academic College research
Shenaar-Golan and Walter
Am J Health Behav. 2020;44(4):384-391 387 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.44.4.2
committee. Informed consent was obtained from
all participants.
RESULTS
To examine the effect of EI and SC on the SWB
of participants who identified as having DEPs com-
pared to participants who did not, we performed
multivariate variance analysis (MANOVA). Table
1 shows these results.
As the table suggests, we found significant differ-
ences in SWB for participants who reported DEPs
and those who did not. For the question on sat-
isfaction with life as a whole (SWB1), there was
a statistically significant difference between the
self-reported DE and non-DE group (F (1,154) =
21.237, p < .000, Eta2 = .12). The answers to the
questions on the 8 items in specific life domains
(eg, standard of living etc.; SWB2-8 index) also re-
vealed a statistically significant difference between
the groups (F (1,154) = 37.949, p < .001, Eta2 =
.20), confirming our hypothesis that people with
perceived DE have a significant lower level of SWB.
We also found a statistically significant difference
between the 2 groups for SC, as measured by the
Self-Compassion Questionnaire. SC was higher (F
(1,154) = 46.860, p < .000, Eta2 = .23) among par-
ticipants who did not perceive themselves as having
DE. Contrary to our expectations, the DE group
reported a statistically significant higher level of EI
(F (1,154) = 9.486, p < .002, Eta2 = .06) than the
control group. However, there were differences in
the various components of EI. The ability to assess
and express emotions was not statistically signifi-
cant (F (1,154) = 1.054, p < .306, Eta2 = .00), but
the ability to regulate and control emotions was
(F (1,154) = 13.497, p < .000, Eta2 = .08), as was
the ability to benefit from emotions (F (1,154) =
10.115, p < .002, Eta2 = .06).
To test the hypothesis that the relationship be-
tween SWB and SC was mediated by EI, we used
PROCESS Macro for Model no. 4, as Hayes56 out-
lines. SWB was positively related to SC (total ef-
Table 1
Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Subjective Well-being (SWB) for Those with and
without Perceived Disordered Eating
Do not think I have
an eating disorder
N = 90
Think I have an
Eating disorder
N = 66
Variable M (SD) M (SD) F(1,154) Eta2 p
SWB1 8.32 (1.72) 6.48 (3.21) 21.237 0.121 .000
SWB2-8 8.07 (1.36) 6.10 (2.58) 37.949 0.198 .001
Self-kindness 3.18 (0.78) 2.33 (1.13) 31.299 0.169 .000
Self-judgment 3.20 (0.77) 2.23 (1.07) 42.911 0.218 .000
Self-humanity 3.25 (0.84) 2.81 (1.04) 8.464 0.052 .004
Mindfulness 3.35 (0.90) 2.48 (1.02) 31.681 0.171 .000
Isolation 3.43 (0.87) 2.65 (1.01) 26.933 0.149 .000
Over-identification 3.10 (0.78) 2.16 (0.90) 42.196 0.215 .000
Self-compassion 3.25 (0.64) 2.42 (085) 46.860 0.234 .000
EI expression 2.07 (0.53) 2.17 (0.65) 1.054 0.007 .306
EI regulation 2.04 (0.58) 2.42(0.72) 13.497 0.081 .000
EI utilization 2.00 (0.55) 2.33 (0.75) 10.115 0.062 .002
EI 2.04 (0.49) 2.31 (0.60) 9.486 0.058 .002
Do Emotional Intelligence and Self-compassion Affect Disordered Eating Perceptions?
388
fect: b = 0.26, EI = 0.02, p < .001) and negatively
related to EI (b = -.16, SE = .01, p < .001). EI was
negatively related to SC (b = -0.39, EI = .11, p <
.001). After controlling for EI as a mediator, the
relationship between SWB and SC decreased (b =
0.19, SE = 0.02, p < .001). Bootstrapping showed
that the unstandardized indirect effect of SWB on
SC was significant at 0.05 and 95% confidence
intervals ranging from 0.02 to 0.16, providing
support that SWB exerts an indirect effect on SC
through EI.
To test whether the relationship between SWB
and SC was moderated by EI perception of DE,
we used Andrew Hayes Process Macro Model no.
1.56 We found EI did not moderate the relation-
ship of SWB and SC, as the interaction term was
not statistically significant. We also found the per-
ception of DE did not moderate the relationship
of SWB and SC, as the interaction term was not
statistically significant.
Next, we conducted a multiple regression analy-
sis to determine which variables (EI or SC) could
predict SWB. Table 2 shows these results.
The results of the regression analysis indicated
that SC and EI explained 61% of the variance (R2
= .61, F(3,151) = 78.769, p < .01). The results sug-
gested the SWB of the participants could be pre-
dicted by high scores in SC and low scores in EI.
Perceptions of having an eating disorder did not
predict SWB in this sample.
DISCUSSION
The study contributes to the literature by examin-
ing the relationship of SC, SWB, and EI of persons
who perceived themselves as having DE compared
to those who did not. We also tested whether the
relationship between SWB and SC was mediated
by EI and conducted further analysis to see if we
could predict which of our variables (SC, EI) con-
tributed to SWB.
In general, the mean SWB was lower than the av-
erage set-point of 75 for Western populations.41,42
The differences between our 2 groups could be ex-
plained by the 2 distinctive components of SWB:
a cognitive component, related to appraisals of life
satisfaction, and an affective component, referring
to the individuals positive and negative emotions,
moods, and experiences.43 Participants who per-
ceived themselves as having DE had a significantly
lower level of SWB than their non-DE counter-
parts, something found by other researchers as
well.44,45 Their lower level of life satisfaction may be
explained, in part, by their constant struggle with
intrusive perceptions of eating and dissatisfaction
and preoccupations with body and weight.
SC was significantly lower for participants with
DEPs, a finding also reported by previous stud-
ies.26,46,47 If those with DEPs are indeed less self-
compassionate, they are more likely to judge
themselves harshly for their shortcomings and to
be less supportive of themselves, thereby adding
to their suffering and perpetuating a cycle of non-
adaptive response to stress which, in turn, affects
their sense of SWB.
An unexpected finding was that EI and its sub-di-
mensions were significantly higher for participants
who perceived themselves as having DE. Whereas
we did not expect it, the finding is in line with most
of the research.11,12,55 Other researchers have found
Table 2
Subjective Well-being Predictors
TSE BBVariables
5.88***.2021.86Self-compassion
-5.80***.275-1.59Emotional Intelligence
-1.788.276-493Disordered Eating
.61R2
78.769 ***F
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Shenaar-Golan and Walter
Am J Health Behav. 2020;44(4):384-391 389 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.44.4.2
thatpatients with a mental disorder, including DE
populations, tend to report similar or even higher
scores on interpersonal EI dimensions than control
groups.48 In addition, populations with DE may
pay close attention to their emotions, but they lack
the ability to repair their negative moods in daily
life.48 This emotional profile may put the person at
risk when confronted with difficulties.18 One study
found women with DE tended to use maladaptive
behaviors to try to relieve pain when confronted
with stressful situations, and this compounded
their problematic eating perceptions.18
Overall, the results suggest that people with per-
ceptions of DE may be sensitive to other peoples
emotions but lack the ability to regulate their own
emotions.48 Negative behaviors toward the self-
have a stronger relationship with certain types of
well-being outcomes than others. However, little
research has examined these issues systematically,
especially in domains of well-being other than
psychopathology. People with disordered eating
perceptions may have higher emotional awareness
which might affect their SC, but instead of leaning
towards the positive end of the SC pole (compas-
sion), high EI in this case may lean towards the
negative pole (lack of compassion).26,46,47
Our findings support the suggestion that SWB
exerts an indirect effect on SC through EI. Neff et
al49 also provide evidence that EI works indirectly
through SC and SWB, impacting disordered eat-
ing perception scores. Although we only looked at
perceptions of DE, our results suggest theoretically
meaningful cognitive-affective self-regulatory qual-
ities may serve as underlying mechanisms driving
the inverse association between thedimensions of
self-compassion andthe SWB of DE populations.
Greater self-compassion may result in people us-
ing more adaptive self-regulatory pathways,26,50
with a concomitant effect on DE. Arguably, higher
EI may increase emotional regulation by mak-
ing people more self-judgmental instead of more
self-compassionate.
In this study, an increase in SC and a decrease
in EI and DE perceptions contributed to a high-
er level of SWB. These results align with those of
Neff,9 who found self-compassion was a signifi-
cant positive predictor of SWB, and this, in turn,
could explain a reduction in DEPs. SC may dis-
rupt the common cognitive-affective perception
of DE, specifically by engaging adaptive emotion
regulation skills and accepting (versus attempting
to suppress or escape) unwanted aspects of the self
unconditionally.26,50
Greater SC may be associated with less percep-
tion of DE through the various adaptive self-regu-
latory pathways. Other studies have found higher
reports of SC are indicative of greater EI and cop-
ing ability, in conjunction with less self-criticism
and thought suppression, among undergraduate
students.26,30,49 These results support our finding
that high SC can predict higher SWB.
Limitations
The research was exploratory, and further re-
searchis required to test the viability of the model
empirically in both developmental and clinical
populations. We did not include a measure of actu-
al DE, only its perception. Future research should
use valid research questionnaires, such as the ED-
EQ-brief.54 In addition, ours was a convenience
sample, thereby limiting the generalizability of our
results. Future work should consider exploring this
relationship in populations that are often under-
represented (e.g., men) and replicating the work in
clinical samples to shed more light on the poten-
tially unique role EI and SC play in SWB for this
group.
Conclusions
Taken together, our findings have important im-
plications for healthcare professionals and thera-
pists.50-53 They contribute to a better understanding
of the interactions of SC, EI, and SWB among those
who report disordered eating. First, and unexpect-
edly, we found a higher EI score among those with
perceptions of DE. Second, SC was the main com-
ponent in coping with life stressors and life chal-
lenges, but we found those with DEPs had more
negative emotions about themselves and lacked the
ability to be self-compassionate, thereby hindering
their SWB. Third, the study proposes a mediating
model that may explain the contribution of EI and
SC to the SWB of those with perceptions of DE.
Human Subjects Approval Statement
The study was conducted in accordance with
the local ethical committee of Tel Hai College.
Do Emotional Intelligence and Self-compassion Affect Disordered Eating Perceptions?
390
Written informed consent was obtained from all
participants.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statement
The authors declare that they have no conflicts
of interest.
Acknowledgements
We thank the research assistants who helped re-
cruit participants for the study.
References
1. Tzur Y, Katz R, Berger R. Yahasim bein ahayot she-ahat
mi-hen lokah be-hafra-ot ahila [Relations between sisters
when one suffers from an eating disorder]. Hevra Ve-reva-
ha. 2014;34:335-358.
2. Haynos AF, Wall MM, Chen C, et al. Patterns of weight
control behavior persisting beyond young adulthood: re-
sults from a 15year longitudinal study. Int J Eat Disord.
2018;51(9):1090-1097.
3. Jeremiejczyk N. Eating disorders and excessive exercise.
Issues. 2007;(81):15.
4. Udo T, Grilo CM. Prevalence and correlates of DSM-
5defined eating disorders in a nationally representative
sample of US adults. Biol Psychiatry. 2018;84(5):345-
354.
5. Sfarlea A, Greimel E, Platt B, et al. Alterations in neu-
ral processing of emotional faces in adolescent anorexia
nervosa patients an event-related potential study. Biol
Psychol. 2016;119:141-155.
6. Haynos AF, Fruzzetti AE. Anorexia nervosa as a disorder
of emotion dysregulation: evidence and treatment impli-
cations. Clin Psychol. 2011;18(3):183-202.
7. Pea-Sarrionandia A, Mikolajczak M, Gross JJ. Integrat-
ing emotion regulation and emotional intelligence tradi-
tions: a meta-analysis. Front Psychology. 2015;6(160):4-
27.
8. Beccia AL, Dunlap C, Hanes DA, et al. Mindfulness-
based eating disorder prevention programs: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Ment Health Preven. 2018;9:1-
12.
9. Neff KD. Self-compassion, self-esteem, and well-being.
Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2011;5(1):1-12.
10. Goldschmidt AB, Aspen VP, Sinton MM, et al. Disor-
dered eating attitudes and behaviors in overweight youth.
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2008;16(2):257-264.
11. Mayer JD, Roberts RD, Barsade SG. Human abilities:
emotional intelligence. Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:507-
536.
12. Slaski M, Cartwright S. Health, performance and emo-
tional intelligence: an exploratory study of retail manag-
ers. Stress and Health. 2002;18(2):63-68.
13. Martins A, Ramalho N, Morin E. A comprehensive me-
ta-analysis of the relationship between emotional intel-
ligence and health. Pers Individ Dif. 2010;49(6):554-564.
14. Frederickson N, Petrides K, Simmonds E. Trait emotional
intelligence as a predictor of socioemotional outcomes in
early adolescence. Pers Individ Dif. 2012;52(3):323-328.
15. Mikolajczak M, Petrides KV, Hurry J. Adolescents choos-
ing self-harm as an emotion regulation strategy: the pro-
tective role of trait emotional intelligence. Br J Clin Psy-
chol. 2009;48(Pt 2):181-193.
16. Batool SS, Khalid R. Low emotional intelligence: a risk
factor for depression. J Pak Psychiatr Soc. 2009;6(2):65-
72.
17. Lizeretti NP, Extremera N. Emotional intelligence and
clinical symptoms in outpatients with generalized anxiety
disorder (GAD). Psychiatr Q. 2011;82(3):253-260.
18. Costarelli V, Demerzi M, Stamou D. Disordered eating
attitudes in relation to body image and emotional intel-
ligence in young women. Journal of Human Nutrition and
Dietetics. 2009;22(3):239-245.
19. Bento S, Ferreira C, Mendes AL, Marta-Simes J. Emo-
tion regulation and disordered eating: the distinct effects
of body image-related cognitive fusion and body appre-
ciation. Psychologica. 2017;60(2):11-25.
20. Harrison A, Sullivan S, Tchanturia K, Treasure J. Emo-
tional functioning in eating disorders: attentional bias,
emotion recognition and emotion regulation. Psychol
Med. 2010;40(11):1887-1897.
21. Shouse SH, Nilsson J. Self-silencing, emotional aware-
ness, and eating behaviors in college women. Psychol
Women Q. 2011;35(3):451-457.
22. Weinbach N, Sher
