Background/Objectives: Feeding and Eating Disorders (FEDs) are common in individuals with overweight or obesity and are associated with greater psychological burden. This study examined whether body-image concerns, impulsivity, and anger regulation distinguish individuals with overweight or obesity with and without a diagnosis of FEDs according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR). Methods: 50 adults with overweight or obesity (76.0% women; mean BMI = 40.23 ± 5.93 kg/m2) were recruited from specialist obesity services in Italy. Twenty-one participants (42.0%) had a DSM-5-TR FED diagnosis and 29 did not. FED diagnoses were established using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Disorders, Clinician Version (SCID-5-CV). Participants completed the Binge Eating Scale (BES), Body Shape Questionnaire (BSQ), Bulimia Test-Revised (BULIT-R), Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS-11), and State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 (STAXI-2). Group differences and an exploratory logistic regression analysis were performed. Results: Compared with participants without FED, those with FED showed significantly higher eating-disorder psychopathology. Body-image concerns were higher in the FED group but did not reach statistical significance. Participants with FED showed higher motor impulsivity and poorer anger regulation. Motor impulsivity was independently associated with FED diagnosis (OR = 1.474, 95% CI = 1.084–2.003, p = 0.013) and remained significant after adjusting for recruitment site. An association between lower anger control and FED diagnosis was also observed but did not remain significant after this adjustment. Conclusions: Adults with overweight or obesity and FED present psychological characteristics extending beyond eating-disorder psychopathology; motor impulsivity emerged as the most robust transdiagnostic correlate of FED status, whereas the association with anger regulation was less consistent and did not survive adjustment for recruitment site. These findings highlight the importance of multidimensional psychological assessment and should be confirmed in larger, prospective, adequately powered studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Raspa et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: