When educating patients about eating disorders (EDs), does it matter whether we focus on biological or psychological causes? According to groundbreaking research by Dr. Brett Deacon and colleagues, the answer is a resounding yes. Their study, published in Behaviour Research and Therapy, reveals that how we explain eating disorders can significantly impact patients’ expectations for recovery and treatment outcomes.
The Problem with Purely Biological Explanations
In recent years, there’s been a push to reclassify eating disorders as “biologically-based mental illnesses.” This shift aims to reduce stigma and improve insurance coverage for treatment—both worthy goals. Many advocacy groups have embraced this perspective, describing EDs as primarily inherited conditions with altered brain chemistry.
While this biological framing may reduce public stigma, Dr. Deacon’s research team found it can also produce unintended negative consequences for people experiencing ED symptoms. Specifically, when eating disorders are presented as primarily biological conditions without emphasizing how these biological factors can change, patients report lower optimism about recovery and reduced confidence in their ability to overcome their symptoms.
Comparing Three Different Approaches
The researchers conducted an innovative study with 216 individuals experiencing significant eating disorder symptoms. Participants were randomly assigned to view one of three different educational presentations about eating disorders:
- Biology-only approach – Emphasizing EDs as primarily influenced by genetics and neurobiological factors
- Malleable biology approach – Acknowledging biological factors but stressing how they can be changed through experience and environment
- Cognitive-behavioral approach – Focusing on psychological factors like body image concerns and dietary behaviors
Key Findings
Perhaps surprisingly, there were no significant differences between the three approaches in terms of self-blame. All three explanatory models resulted in similar levels of personal responsibility for symptoms.
However, the biology-only approach resulted in significantly lower recovery expectations compared to the other two approaches. Participants who received this explanation were more likely to believe their symptoms would continue indefinitely and felt less control over their condition.
Even more striking were the differences in treatment attitudes. When presented with information about cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT)—an evidence-based treatment for eating disorders—participants who had received cognitive-behavioral education rated the treatment as significantly more credible and expected it to be more effective than those who received biological explanations.
Implications for Mental Health Education
These findings have important implications for how we educate both the public and individuals seeking treatment for eating disorders:
- Balance is key: While biological factors are important in understanding eating disorders, education should also emphasize the malleability of these factors and how they interact with psychological and environmental influences.
- Treatment alignment matters: When using cognitive-behavioral therapy (a first-line treatment for eating disorders), providing education that emphasizes cognitive-behavioral factors may enhance patient expectations—which research shows can improve treatment outcomes.
- Avoiding pessimism: Purely biological explanations risk creating a more pessimistic outlook among patients, potentially undermining their confidence in their ability to recover. This doesn’t serve patients well, particularly given the effectiveness of psychological treatments for eating disorders.
What This Means for You
If you or someone you know is struggling with disordered eating, consider how different explanations might affect your outlook on recovery:
- Recognize that while there may be biological components to eating disorders, these factors are not fixed or deterministic
- Understand that evidence-based psychological treatments like CBT have demonstrated effectiveness, regardless of biological influences
- Maintain optimism about recovery—many people fully recover from eating disorders with appropriate treatment
Mental health professionals should consider these findings when educating clients about their conditions. As the researchers suggest, the ideal approach may be an integrated one that acknowledges “biological, genetic, and sociocultural factors, none of which are the fault of the sufferer” while emphasizing the malleability of biological factors to promote recovery optimism.
Dr. Deacon’s research reminds us that how we understand our mental health challenges shapes our expectations for improvement. By embracing explanations that promote agency and optimism while reducing stigma, we can foster more positive treatment outcomes for those struggling with eating disorders.
Leave a Reply