BACKGROUND: DSM-5 differentiates avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) from other eating disorders (EDs) by a lack of overvaluation of body weight/shape driving restrictive eating. However, clinical observations and research demonstrate ARFID and shape/weight motivations sometimes co-occur. To inform classification, we: (1) derived profiles underlying restriction motivation and examined their validity and (2) described diagnostic characterizations of individuals in each profile to explore whether findings support current diagnostic schemes. We expected, consistent with DSM-5, that profiles would comprise individuals endorsing solely ARFID or restraint (i.e. trying to eat less to control shape/weight) motivations. METHODS: We applied latent profile analysis to 202 treatment-seeking individuals (ages 10-79 years [M = 26, s.d. = 14], 76% female) with ARFID or a non-ARFID ED, using the Nine-Item ARFID Screen (Picky, Appetite, and Fear subscales) and the Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire Restraint subscale as indicators. RESULTS: A 5-profile solution emerged: Restraint/ARFID-Mixed (n = 24; 8% [n = 2] with ARFID diagnosis); ARFID-2 (with Picky/Appetite; n = 56; 82% ARFID); ARFID-3 (with Picky/Appetite/Fear; n = 40; 68% ARFID); Restraint (n = 45; 11% ARFID); and Non-Endorsers (n = 37; 2% ARFID). Two profiles comprised individuals endorsing solely ARFID motivations (ARFID-2, ARFID-3) and one comprising solely restraint motivations (Restraint), consistent with DSM-5. However, Restraint/ARFID-Mixed (92% non-ARFID ED diagnoses, comprising 18% of those with non-ARFID ED diagnoses in the full sample) endorsed ARFID and restraint motivations. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneous profiles identified suggest ARFID and restraint motivations for dietary restriction may overlap somewhat and that individuals with non-ARFID EDs can also endorse high ARFID symptoms. Future research should clarify diagnostic boundaries between ARFID and non-ARFID EDs.
BACKGROUND: Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) and anorexia nervosa (AN) are the two primary restrictive eating disorders; however, they are driven by differing motives for inadequate dietary intake. Despite overlap in restrictive eating behaviors and subsequent malnutrition, it remains unknown if ARFID and AN also share commonalities in their cognitive profiles, with cognitive alterations being a key identifier of AN. Discounting the present value of future outcomes with increasing delay to their expected receipt represents a core cognitive process guiding human decision-making. A hallmark cognitive characteristic of individuals with AN (vs. healthy controls [HC]) is reduced discounting of future outcomes, resulting in reduced impulsivity and higher likelihood of favoring delayed gratification. Whether individuals with ARFID display a similar reduction in delay discounting as those with AN (vs. an opposing bias towards increased delay discounting or no bias) is important in informing transdiagnostic versus disorder-specific cognitive characteristics and optimizing future intervention strategies. METHOD: To address this research question, 104 participants (ARFID: n = 57, AN: n = 28, HC: n = 19) completed a computerized Delay Discounting Task. Groups were compared by their delay discounting parameter (ln)k. RESULTS: Individuals with ARFID displayed a larger delay discounting parameter than those with AN, indicating steeper delay discounting (M ± SD = -6.10 ± 2.00 vs. -7.26 ± 1.73, p = 0.026 [age-adjusted], Hedges' g = 0.59), with no difference from HC (p = 0.514, Hedges' g = -0.35). CONCLUSION: Our findings provide a first indication of distinct cognitive profiles among the two primary restrictive eating disorders. The present results, together with future research spanning additional cognitive domains and including larger and more diverse samples of individuals with ARFID (vs. AN), will contribute to identifying maintenance mechanisms that are unique to each disorder as well as contribute to the optimization and tailoring of treatment strategies across the spectrum of restrictive eating disorders.
Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) and anorexia nervosa (AN) are both restrictive eating disorders. However, the reasons for restricting food intake differ between the two diagnoses. A key question in further understanding similarities and differences between ARFID and AN is to understand whether individuals with these disorders process information and make decisions in similar or distinct ways. When humans decide between two different outcomes (e.g., a smaller immediate or a larger delayed reward), outcomes decrease in their value the farther in the future we expect to receive them (delay discounting). Individuals with AN exhibit a reduced discounting of future outcomes, which makes them more likely to forego immediate gratification for later rewards. However, whether this holds true for individuals with ARFID too (or whether they show the opposite or no bias) is unknown. Our investigation is the first to compare delay discounting between individuals with ARFID, AN, and healthy controls (HC). Our results show that individuals with ARFID show more delay discounting than those with AN, with no difference from HC. Knowing how rewards are being chosen and decisions made (and knowing differences between diagnoses) will be helpful in further optimizing and tailoring treatments for restrictive eating disorders.
