(PS6-A22) The Body Advocacy Movement: Exploring Intervention Impacts on Fear of Fatness Across Individuals with and Without Eating Disorder Symptoms

Background:

Peer-facilitated acute intervention is an effective tool for reducing eating disorder (ED) risk and ED symptoms (Stice et al., 2020). Compensatory behaviors (vomiting, laxative use, fasting, driven exercise) motivated by weight gain prevention and to counteract the effects of eating are common ED symptoms and are often present among those with subclinical ED pathology. The Body Advocacy Movement (BAM), an acute intervention adapted from The Body Project, utilizes both dissonance- and exposure-based principles to target reductions in fear of weight gain among participants. As high fear of weight gain is often present among individuals with full- and subthreshold EDs, is often cited as a motivation for engagement in compensatory behaviors, and may represent an entrenched cognitive ED symptom, we are investigating intervention impacts on fatphobia and anti-fat bias across individuals with and without current compensatory behaviors, with a goal to examine potential differential impacts across those with and without current compensatory behaviors as sample size increases. 

Methods:

BAM consists of two peer-facilitated, 2-hour sessions that occur one week apart. Fatphobia and anti-fat bias were assessed using the Goldfarb Fear of Fat Scale (GFFS) and Universal Measure of Bias-Fat (UMB) pre-post intervention. We split participants into one of two groups: 1) current compensatory behaviors (CB+) and 2) control (CB-). Current CB engagement was determined using symptoms reported on the Eating Disorder Diagnostic Scale. We then determined differences in GFFS and UMB scores pre-post for each group. 

Results:

In the CB+ group (N=24), the average differences in GFFS and UMB scores pre-post were -4.83 and -2.38, respectively. In the CB- group (N=21), the average differences in GFFS and UMB scores pre-post were -3.62 and -9.24, respectively. A paired t-test showed that the GFFS and UMB average differences between the CB+ and CB- groups were statistically significantly different for the GFFS (t(35) = - 2.15, p = 0.04) and statistically insignificantly different for the UMB (t(40) = 0.92, p = 0.36).

Discussion:

The average reductions in fatphobia/anti-fat bias across groups demonstrate the efficacy of a peer-facilitated acute intervention in reducing fatphobia/anti-fat bias. The differences in fatphobia/anti-fat bias reductions will be compared across groups as sample size increases with appropriate power to determine if the intervention is as effective at reducing fatphobia/anti-fat bias for individuals with a current CB engagement as it is for those without current CB engagement. Additionally, we will investigate comparing those with a clinical ED diagnosis (anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder) and those without a current ED diagnosis. Future studies should assess how long these reductions last post-intervention and if/when previous levels of fatphobia/anti-fat bias return post-intervention.

Source:

Stice, E, Rohde, P, Shaw, H, & Gau, J.M. (2020). Clinician-led, peer-led, and internet-delivered dissonance-based eating disorder prevention programs: Effectiveness of these delivery modalities through 4-year follow-up. J Consult Clin Psychol, 88(5), 481-494. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000493