The role of discrimination and adverse childhood experiences in disordered eating

Plain English summaryAdverse childhood experiences (ACEs) increase risk for eating disorders (EDs). Discrimination based on race, gender, and gender and sexual identity is also linked to ED behaviors. This paper examined whether discrimination impacted ED behaviors when ACEs were considered to understand how they both might play a role in risk for EDs. Findings suggest that experiences of discrimination may have a greater impact on eating disorder symptoms in college students than a history of ACEs. More research is needed to understand the negative impacts of discrimination on eating disorders, in addition to history of trauma. Clinicians should attend to the ways discrimination may impact their clients' eating disorder behaviors, and whether individuals experience bias or discrimination when seeking eating disorder treatment. BackgroundIn clinical research, there has been a call to move beyond individual psychosocial factors towards identifying cultural and social factors that inform mental health. Similar calls have been made in the eating disorders (ED) field underscoring the need to understand larger sociocultural influences on EDs. Discrimination is a social stressor that may influence mental health in similar ways to traumatic or adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). Given the high rates of EDs and discrimination among marginalized groups, it is vital to understand the role of discrimination and ACEs as predictors of ED symptoms in these populations. The aim of this study is to examine how perceived discrimination predicts ED pathology when statistically adjusting for gender, race, and ACEs.MethodsThe diverse study sample consisted of 331 undergraduate students from a longitudinal cohort study (ages 18-24; 66% female; 35% White/non-Hispanic). Participants completed measures of everyday discrimination, ACEs, and ED pathology.ResultsFollowing adjustment for multiple statistical comparisons, the frequency of daily discrimination predicted all ED symptoms above and beyond history of ACEs. In follow-up analyses, number of reasons for discrimination predicted cognitive restraint and purging. Differences in ED symptomatology were found based on the reason for discrimination, gender, and race. Specifically, those who experienced weight discrimination endorsed higher scores on all ED symptoms, and those experiencing gender discrimination endorsed higher body dissatisfaction, cognitive restraint, and restriction. People of color endorsed higher restriction, while female participants endorsed higher scores on all ED symptom with the exception of cognitive restraint.ConclusionDiscrimination is a salient risk factor for ED symptoms even when accounting for individuals' history of ACEs. Future research should utilize an intersectional approach to examine how perceived discrimination affects ED pathology over time. (Word count: 234).