Justice sensitivity and rejection sensitivity as predictors and outcomes of eating disorder pathology: A 5‐year longitudinal study

Abstract

Objective: Rejection sensitivity and justice sensitivity are personality traits that are characterized by frequent perceptions and intense adverse responses to negative social cues. Whereas there is good evidence for associations between rejection sensitivity, justice sensitivity, and internalizing problems, no longitudinal studies have investigated their association with eating disorder (ED) pathology so far. Thus, the present study examined longitudinal relations between rejection sensitivity, justice sensitivity, and ED pathology.Method: Participants (N = 769) reported on their rejection sensitivity, justice sensitivity, and ED pathology at 9-19 (T1), 11-21 (T2), and 14-22 years of age (T3).Results: Latent cross-lagged models showed longitudinal associations between ED pathology and anxious rejection sensitivity, observer and victim justice sensitivity. T1 and T2 ED pathology predicted higher T2 and T3 anxious rejection sensitivity, respectively. In turn, T2 anxious rejection sensitivity predicted more T3 ED pathology. T1 observer justice sensitivity predicted more T2 ED pathology, which predicted higher T3 observer justice sensitivity. Furthermore, T1 ED pathology predicted higher T2 victim justice sensitivity.Discussion: Rejection sensitivity-particularly anxious rejection sensitivity-and justice sensitivity may be involved in the maintenance or worsening of ED pathology and should be considered by future research and in prevention and treatment of ED pathology. Also, mental health problems may increase rejection sensitivity and justice sensitivity traits in the long term. K E Y W O R D S eating disorder pathology, justice sensitivity, longitudinal, rejection sensitivity

Responses Toward Injustice Shaped by Justice Sensitivity – Evidence From Germany

“…Contrasting previous assumptions, instead of indignation ( Schmitt et al, 2005 ), sadness was the most common affective response among participants high in observer JS, indicating the strong identification with the victim and explaining its consistent correlations with internalizing problems, particularly with eating behavior pathology when combined with feelings of helplessness ( Bondü et al, 2020 ). Similarly, beneficiary JS showed the closest relations with guilt across all unjust situations but was more closely related to anger, sadness, and disappointment in situations from the beneficiary’s perspective.…”

“…Therefore, getting deeper insights into typical responses of individuals high in JS may help to explain why they are prone to responding in the observed ways. For example, if individuals high in victim JS not only had a strong tendency to experience anger, but also sadness and disappointment, this finding would help to explain its relations with internalizing symptoms ( Bondü et al, 2017 ; Bilgin et al, 2021 ); if individuals high in observer JS were found to be prone to helplessness in the present study, this would help to explain its relations with eating disorder pathology ( Bondü et al, 2020 ); if individuals high in beneficiary JS were not as prone to guilt as previously thought, but prone to justifying inequalities, these findings would help to explain why they were found to appreciate rather than dislike own advantages ( Pretsch et al, 2016 ).…”

“…Hence, anger may be the first externalizing response to unjust treatment that explains close associations between victim JS and antisocial behavior, particularly when combined with low levels of guilt. There, however, may be a second, internalizing affective response ( Downey et al, 1998 ) that may motivate social withdrawal and explain the relations between victim JS and internalizing problems ( Bondü et al, 2017 , 2020 ; Bilgin et al, 2021 ). Thus, these affective responses should be taken into account by future research when investigating and explaining the relations between victim JS and different outcome measures.…”

“…Furthermore, observer JS was repeatedly positively related to reactive aggression ( Bondü and Krahé, 2015 ; Bondü and Richter, 2016 ). Finally, research related all JS facets to a broad range of internalizing problems ( Bondü et al, 2017 , 2020 ; Bondü and Inerle, 2020 ; Bilgin et al, 2021 ), but empirical evidence for the mechanisms potentially explaining these links is sparse.…”

Links between justice sensitivity and moral reasoning, moral emotions, and moral identity in middle childhood

“…Furthermore, gender‐ and age‐related mean‐level differences in JS in childhood and adolescence are well documented, with higher levels for girls compared to boys (most consistent for observer and perpetrator JS) and age‐related increases in JS (most consistent for victim and observer JS; Bondü & Elsner, 2015; Bondü & Kleinfeldt, 2021). Gender‐ and age‐related moderating effects were shown for associations between JS and depressive symptoms or eating behavior pathology (Bondü et al, 2017, 2020), but less so for aggressive behavior (Bondü & Krahé, 2015). In addition, research indicated girls’ earlier advanced moral reasoning and emotion attribution as compared to boys' (Daniel et al, 2014; Malti & Keller, 2009), and general shifts in complex cognitive and trait‐related moral dimensions around 9 years of age (Daniel et al, 2014; Kingsford et al, 2018).…”