Bridging cognitive, phenomenological and psychodynamic approaches to eating disorders

Abstract

AbstractCognitive, psychodynamic, and phenomenological scholars converged their attention on abnormal bodily phenomena as the core psychopathological feature of eating disorders (EDs). While cognitive approaches focus their attention on a need for “objective” (i.e., observable, measurable) variables (including behaviours and distorted cognitions), the phenomenological exploration typically targets descriptions of persons’ lived experience. According to a new emerging phenomenological perspective, the classic behavioural and cognitive symptoms of EDs should be considered as epiphenomena of a deeper core represented by a disorder of the embodiment. The cognitive–behavioural model is the most studied and, up till now, clinically efficacious treatment for EDs. However, as any coherent and scientifically grounded model, it presents some limitations in its application. Numerous patients report a chronic course, do not respond to treatment and develop a personality structure based on pathological eating behaviours, since “being anorexic” becomes a new identity for the person. Furthermore, the etiopathogenetic trajectory of EDs influences the treatment response: for example, patients reporting childhood abuse or maltreatment respond differently to cognitive-behavioural therapy. To obtain a deeper comprehension of these disorders, it seems important to shift attention from abnormal eating behaviours to more complex and subtle psycho(patho)logical features, especially experiential ones. This characterisation represents the unavoidable premise for the identification of new therapeutic targets and consequently for an improvement of the outcome of these severe disorders. Thus, the present review aims to provide an integrated view of cognitive, psychodynamic, and phenomenological perspectives on EDs, suggesting new therapeutic targets and intervention strategies based on this integrated model. Level of Evidence: Level V.Level of evidence Level V: Opinions of authorities, based on descriptive studies, narrative reviews, clinical experience, or reports of expert committees.