Structural analysis of parent–child relationships in eating disorders.

Abstract

This study tested the psychodynamic formulation that binge eating in bulimia reflects familial and intrapsychic deficits in nurturance, empathy, and to some extent, affective regulation. The study compared parental relationships and introjects among young women (N = 80) with bulimia, bulimia-anorexia, anorexia, and normal controls using Benjamin's Structural Analysis of Social Behavior model and rating scales. As expected, the results revealed that the two bulimic subgroups experienced deficits in parental nurturance and empathy, relative to normal young women. However, only the deficits in perceived nurturance were specific to bulimia, that is, were also more severe than in classical anorexia. In addition, both bulimics and anorexics viewed their parents as more blaming, rejecting, and neglectful toward them relative to normal controls, and they treated themselves with the same hostility and deprivation. These findings were interpreted as partially supportive of the psychoanalytic hypothesis of binge eating in bulimia.

Ambivalent attachment in female adolescents: Association with affective instability and eating disorders

“…While many perspectives on anorexia currently emphasize either biological (Hendren, 1983;Swift, Andrews, & Barklage, 1986) or sociocultural (Bemporad, Ratey, O'Driscoll, & Daehler, 1988;Orbach, 1986;Steiner-Adair, 1986) correlates, the young women in this study, as in others (Humphrey, 1986;Strober & Humphrey, 1987;Beattie, 1988;Armstrong & Roth, 1989;Stern, 1991), illustrate the relationship between maternal attachment patterns and subsequent development of eating disorders.…”

Familial contributions to the etiology and course of anorexia nervosa and bulimia.

“…Strober, Salkin, Burroughs, and Morrell (1982) also compared the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) profiles from 35 parents of bulimic anorexics with those of 35 parents of restricting anorexics and found the parents of the bulimic subgroup to be significantly more hostile, impulsive, and excitable than the parents of the restricting subgroup. Humphrey (1986cHumphrey ( , 1986d) has compared these three subtypes of eating disorders with one another and with normal control subjects and has found that, whereas all three clinical groups perceived their relationships as more blaming, rejecting, and neglectful relative to control subjects, only the two bulimic subgroups also perceived a deficit in parental nurturance and empathy (Humphrey, 1986e). Compared with the families of restricting anorexics, the families of bulimics were more hostilely enmeshed and deficient in affection and support, whereas the families of restricting anorexics more frequently juxtaposed opposing messages of affection and caring with enmeshment and negation of the child's needs.…”

Eating disorders : the correlation of family relationships with an eating disorder continuum

“…The question of whether the fathers are remote is therefore unclear if they are also reported as being overinvolved. Humphrey's (1986) findings suggest that the relationship with the father may be more important etiologically than is traditionally claimed in analytic theory. The impact of the fathers upon the development of eating disorders has not been examined as extensively as that of the mothers.…”

“…Humphrey (1986) examined the deficits in nurturance, empathy, and affective regulation on both a familial and intraphysic level as possible contributors to eating disorders using Benjamin's Structural Analysis of Social…”