Background and objectives

The Jumping to Conclusions (JTC) bias is the tendency to make hasty decisions based on limited evidence and may contribute to the formation of over-valued beliefs about the importance of weight, shape and eating. Previous research investigating the JTC bias in clinical eating disorder samples, as assessed by the beads task, is inconclusive. The current study investigated the JTC bias in a non-clinical sample of undergraduate students identified as being lower or higher risk of developing an eating disorder. The study used a more reliable ‘distractor’ beads task that also incentivised hastier decisions by elevating the pressure of the task.

Methods

Female undergraduate students (N = 156, 48%, classified as higher risk) completed a pressure and non-pressure distractor beads task, along with measures of weight concern and body-image flexibility.

Results

Higher risk participants displayed a hastier decision-making style than lower risk participants. Task pressure elicited a hastier decision-making style across the whole sample, however, was unable to distinguish between higher and lower eating disorder risk status.

Limitations

Interpretation of findings are limited to non-clinical samples and may not generalise to clinical eating disorder populations.

Conclusions

Findings suggest the need for replication in a clinical eating disorder sample using the distractor beads task. Future research should investigate whether eating disorder salient stimuli elicits a stronger bias.

中文翻译：

---

饮食失调风险较高的个体的仓促决策

背景和目标

跳到结论 (JTC) 偏差是根据有限的证据做出仓促决定的倾向，可能有助于形成对体重、体型和饮食重要性的高估信念。先前的研究调查临床饮食失调样本中的 JTC 偏差，如珠子任务所评估，尚无定论。目前的研究调查了非临床本科生样本中的 JTC 偏差，这些样本被确定为患饮食失调的风险较低或较高。该研究使用了一种更可靠的“干扰”珠子任务，该任务还通过提高任务的压力来激励仓促的决策。

方法

女本科生（N = 156，48%，被归类为较高风险）完成了压力和非压力干扰珠任务，以及体重关注和身体形象灵活性的测量。

结果

高风险参与者比低风险参与者表现出更仓促的决策风格。任务压力在整个样本中引发了一种仓促的决策风格，然而，无法区分较高和较低的饮食失调风险状态。

限制

研究结果的解释仅限于非临床样本，可能无法推广到临床饮食失调人群。

结论

研究结果表明，需要使用干扰珠任务在临床饮食失调样本中进行复制。未来的研究应该调查饮食失调的显着刺激是否会引起更强的偏见。