Research indicates the existence of an eating disorder continuum. The two-component model of disordered eating suggests that certain personality traits may increase an individual's vulnerability to develop more severe variants of disordered eating symptomatology. The present study investigates pre-clinical elevations on a measure of personality based on the Five-Factor Model (FFM) and pre-clinical elevations on a measure of eating disorder symptomatology in a sample of nonclinical undergraduates. The personality dimensions Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Agreeableness accounted for 7% of the variability in Body Dissatisfaction. Subcomponents comprising the personality dimensions of the FFM as determined by Saucier (1998) (see Appendix A) were analyzed. The Self-Reproach and Intellectual Interests subcomponents were the strongest predictors of Drive for Thinness and Body Dissatisfaction. The subcomponent Sociability was the strongest predictor of Bulimia. Findings present implications for prevention and treatment interventions. Longitudinal studies are needed to determine the temporal directionality of personality and disturbed eating.

The purpose of this study was to examine how male and female leaders view their own effectiveness as compared to their objective performance. This study also examined sex and gender differences in subordinate's views of male and female leaders. Forty-two mixed-sex groups led by appointed male and female leaders were observed to assess objective and perceived leader effectiveness. Gender role of participants was assessed using the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI). No sex or gender differences were found in objective leadership effectiveness. An unexpected finding was that male and female leaders perceived themselves accurately as leaders. Significant differences were found in the way male subordinates rated men and women leaders when taking into account gender role. Results indicated that the study of gender bias in leadership is complex and should be examined in conjunction with gender role. Social role theory helps to explain this bias.