Body Dissatisfaction
Conditions
Brief summary
Study Objectives: 1. Examine whether singing can be used as a cognitive defusion strategy to change one's appraisals of body-related thoughts so they are less threatening to the individual. 2. Explore whether this technique can change the appraisals of one's body (i.e. increasing body satisfaction, increasing body esteem, decreasing the drive towards thinness), as well as increase mood and self-esteem. 3. Compare singing to the defusion strategy of verbal repetition, as well as control conditions, to determine the effectiveness of these techniques. 4. Examine whether defusion techniques would be particularly beneficial for individuals with high thought-shape fusion Study Hypotheses: The primary hypothesis was that the cognitive defusion conditions, namely verbal repetition and singing, would foster greater detachment (i.e. defusion) from negative body-related thoughts and change thought appraisals such that these thoughts were less believable and less negative, and the individual was more willing, less likely to avoid, and less uncomfortable when engaging with these thoughts than the control conditions. Secondary hypotheses propose that these defusion techniques will reduce negative body-related cognitions such as body image distress, drive for thinness, and body dissatisfaction to a greater extent than the control conditions. Moreover, compared to the control condition, these techniques are expected to be superior in reducing negative mood and improving self-esteem. Finally, better outcomes are expected from those in the defusion conditions who practice the technique as instructed (i.e. better homework adherence). Due to the novelty of this intervention, no specific hypotheses have been made regarding whether singing will equal or differ from verbal repetition on the aforementioned outcome measures. Moreover, due to the exploratory nature of applying defusion techniques with individuals with thought-shape fusion, no specific hypotheses have been made around anticipated changes in the perception of the thought, body image satisfaction, mood, self-esteem, and cognitive defusion within this population.
Detailed description
Eating disorders are characterized by intense mental preoccupation with body shape and weight. Even in the absence of disordered eating, high levels of body dissatisfaction prospectively predict depression and low self-esteem in young women. Common intervention strategies, such as challenging the validity of negative body-related thoughts, often have limited success. Recent research suggests that accepting, rather than challenging, negative body-related thoughts may reduce body image distress by changing the relationship with those thoughts. For example, continually repeating or even singing an unwanted thought has been shown to reduce the believability and discomfort associated with that thought, through a technique known as cognitive defusion. The current study aims to extend the literature on cognitive defusion and test its effectiveness in the treatment of body dissatisfaction. In a randomized controlled trial design, 122 female restrained eaters were randomly assigned to practice either 1) verbally repeating negative body-related thoughts, 2) singing negative body-related thoughts, 3) verbally repeating body-unrelated thoughts (control), or 4) singing body-unrelated thoughts (control). The goal of this study was to determine whether singing one's negative body-related thoughts could lead to greater changes in perception of the thought, body image satisfaction, mood, and self-esteem relative to a control condition when practiced twice daily for one week.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALCognitive Defusion
Cognitive defusion aims to change one's relationship to their thoughts - as opposed to changing the content, form, or frequency - by reframing internal experiences as less threatening (Hayes, Luoma, Bond, Masuda, & Lillis, 2006). It is the process of detaching the link between one's thoughts and perceptions of reality and acknowledging the role one's thoughts play in their internal events. A number of techniques have been developed to remove the literal quality of such thoughts, including repeating the thought, and, more recently, singing the thought.
Sponsors
York University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
NONE
Intervention model description
This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into four conditions; two experimental and two control \[1:1:1:1\]. This is a non-inferiority study to examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
17 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Restrained eaters, as indicated by a score of 15 or greater on the Revised Restraint Scale (Polivy, Herman, & Howard, 1988) * Identify as female * Age 17 and older
Exclusion criteria
* Under age 17 * Do not identify as female * Scores below 15 on the Revised Restraint Scale (Polivy, Herman, & Howard, 1988).
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Believability) | Baseline, Post-Intervention (Day 1), and Follow-up (Day 7) | Participants rated the believability of their body-related thought on a visual analogue scale that ranges from 0-100. Higher scores means greater believability of this negative thought. |
| Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Negativity) | Baseline, Post-Intervention (Day 1), and Follow-Up (Day 7) | Participants rated the negativity of their body-related thought on a visual analogue scale that ranges from 0-100. Higher scores means that the negative thought is perceived to be more negative. |
| Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Discomfort) | Baseline, Post-Intervention (Day 1), and Follow-up (Day 7) | Participants rated the discomfort of their body-related thought on a visual analogue scale that ranges from 0-100. Higher scores means that the thought is perceived to be more uncomfortable. |
| Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Willingness) | Baseline, Post-Intervention (Day 1), and Follow-up (Day 7) | Participants rated their willingness to have their body-related thought on a visual analogue scale that ranges from 0-100. Higher scores means that they are more willing to have the thought. |
| Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Avoidance) | Baseline, Post-Intervention (Day 1), and Follow-up (Day 7) | Participants rated their avoidance of their body-related thought on a visual analogue scale that ranges from 0-100. Higher scores means greater avoidance of the thought. |
| Self-Ratings of Cognitive Fusion (Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire) | Baseline and Follow-up (Day 7) | The Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire includes 7 items measured on a 7 item Likert scale and will be used to measure changes in cognitive fusion. Higher scores indicate higher degree of cognitive fusion. Total scores can range from 7 to 49. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Self-Ratings of Mood (Confidence) | Baseline, Post-Intervention (Day 1), and Follow-up (Day 7) | Participants rated their confidence on a visual analogue scale that ranges from 0-100. Higher scores means greater confidence. |
| Self-Ratings of Self-Esteem (State Self Esteem Scale) | Baseline and Follow-up (Day 7) | The State Self Esteem Scale is a 20-item measure used to assess changes in state self esteem, rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Total scores can range from 5 to 100. Higher scores indicate higher self-esteem. |
| Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Weight Dissatisfaction) | Baseline, Post-Intervention (Day 1), and Follow-up (Day 7) | Participants rated their weight dissatisfaction on a visual analogue scale that ranges from 0-100. Higher scores means greater weight dissatisfaction. |
| Self-Rating of Thought-Shape Fusion (Thought-Shape Fusion Questionnaire) | Baseline | The Thought-Shape Fusion Questionnaire was used to assess the extent to which thinking about a forbidden food or behaviour produces a change in one's perception of their body shape and weight. It is a 34-item measure that asks participants to rate how well an item describes them on a 5 point Likert scale from 0 to 4. Total scores can range from 0 to 136, with higher scores indicating greater fusion to body- or food-related thoughts. |
| Self-Rating of Homework Adherence (Homework Adherence Questionnaire) | Homework completion across seven days (14 time points) | Homework adherence was determined by the total number of seconds spent practicing the defusion technique over the course of the week. There is no total scale range available for this measure. |
| Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Appearance Dissatisfaction) | Baseline, Post-Intervention (Day 1), and Follow-up (Day 7) | Participants rated their appearance dissatisfaction on a visual analogue scale that ranges from 0-100. Higher scores means greater appearance dissatisfaction. |
| Self-ratings of Body Image Distress (Body Image State Scale) | Baseline, Post-Intervention (Day 1), and Follow-up (Day 7) | The Body Image State Scale was used as part of a standard questionnaire package to measure changes in body image cognitions. Participants rated 6 items on a 9-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 9, for a possible total score of 6 to 54, with higher scores indicating greater body image satisfaction (i.e. positive body image). |
| Self-Ratings of Mood (Anxiety) | Baseline, Post-Intervention (Day 1), and Follow-up (Day 7) | Participants rated their anxiety on a visual analogue scale that ranges from 0-100. Higher scores means greater anxiety. |
| Self-Ratings of Mood (Depression) | Baseline, Post-Intervention (Day 1), and Follow-up (Day 7) | Participants rated their depressive mood on a visual analogue scale that ranges from 0-100. Higher scores means greater depressive mood. |
| Self-Ratings of Mood (Happiness) | Baseline, Post-Intervention (Day 1), and Follow-up (Day 7) | Participants rated their happiness on a visual analogue scale that ranges from 0-100. Higher scores means greater happy mood. |
Countries
Canada
Participant flow
Recruitment details
Participants were recruited from the Undergraduate Research Participant Pool of students enrolled in Introduction to Psychology at York University. Participants were individuals who reported restrained eating behaviours and attitudes as determined by an eligibility screener conducted online at the start of the academic year (September 2018).
Pre-assignment details
All participants who were enrolled in this study were assigned to a condition.
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts A cognitive defusion strategy in which participants repeat a target unwanted thought out loud and as quickly as possible for 60 seconds.
Cognitive Defusion: Cognitive defusion aims to change one's relationship to their thoughts - as opposed to changing the content, form, or frequency - by reframing internal experiences as less threatening (Hayes, Luoma, Bond, Masuda, & Lillis, 2006). It is the process of detaching the link between one's thoughts and perceptions of reality and acknowledging the role one's thoughts play in their internal events. A number of techniques have been developed to remove the literal quality of such thoughts, including repeating the thought, and, more recently, singing the thought. | 32 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts A cognitive defusion strategy in which participants sing a target unwanted thought to the tune of 'twinkle, twinkle' for 60 seconds
Cognitive Defusion: Cognitive defusion aims to change one's relationship to their thoughts - as opposed to changing the content, form, or frequency - by reframing internal experiences as less threatening (Hayes, Luoma, Bond, Masuda, & Lillis, 2006). It is the process of detaching the link between one's thoughts and perceptions of reality and acknowledging the role one's thoughts play in their internal events. A number of techniques have been developed to remove the literal quality of such thoughts, including repeating the thought, and, more recently, singing the thought. | 35 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts A control condition in which participants repeat the phrase I am talking out loud and as quickly as possible for 60 seconds. | 33 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts A control condition in which participants sing the phrase I am singing to the tune of 'twinkle, twinkle' for 60 seconds | 33 |
| Total | 133 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 | FG001 | FG002 | FG003 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | Lost to Follow-up | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Overall Study | Withdrawal by Subject | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 20.49 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.42 | 19.66 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.75 | 20.70 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.1 | 22.66 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.22 | 20.87 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.11 |
| Body Mass Index (BMI) | 24.79 kg/m^2 STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.2 | 26.89 kg/m^2 STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.63 | 26.17 kg/m^2 STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.41 | 24.59 kg/m^2 STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.27 | 25.59 kg/m^2 STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.69 |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race/Ethnicity Arab/West Asian | 13 Participants | 5 Participants | 7 Participants | 5 Participants | 30 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race/Ethnicity Black | 2 Participants | 2 Participants | 2 Participants | 0 Participants | 6 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race/Ethnicity Declined to response | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 1 Participants | 2 Participants | 4 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race/Ethnicity East Asian | 4 Participants | 2 Participants | 2 Participants | 2 Participants | 10 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race/Ethnicity Latin American | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 2 Participants | 1 Participants | 4 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race/Ethnicity Mixed | 1 Participants | 4 Participants | 2 Participants | 1 Participants | 8 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race/Ethnicity Other | 1 Participants | 3 Participants | 0 Participants | 2 Participants | 6 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race/Ethnicity South Asian | 3 Participants | 3 Participants | 5 Participants | 6 Participants | 17 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race/Ethnicity South East Asian | 0 Participants | 2 Participants | 2 Participants | 2 Participants | 6 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race/Ethnicity White | 11 Participants | 10 Participants | 9 Participants | 12 Participants | 42 Participants |
| Restrained Eating | 19.55 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.15 | 23.27 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.06 | 21.65 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.27 | 20.68 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.2 | 21.23 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.12 |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Female | 35 Participants | 33 Participants | 32 Participants | 33 Participants | 133 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk | EG002 affected / at risk | EG003 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 27 | 0 / 33 | 0 / 31 | 0 / 31 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 27 | 0 / 33 | 0 / 31 | 0 / 31 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 27 | 0 / 33 | 0 / 31 | 0 / 31 |
Outcome results
Primary
Self-Ratings of Cognitive Fusion (Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire)
The Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire includes 7 items measured on a 7 item Likert scale and will be used to measure changes in cognitive fusion. Higher scores indicate higher degree of cognitive fusion. Total scores can range from 7 to 49.
Time frame: Baseline and Follow-up (Day 7)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Cognitive Fusion (Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire) | Baseline | 36.56 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 9.55 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Cognitive Fusion (Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire) | Follow-Up | 33.30 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 10.84 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Cognitive Fusion (Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire) | Follow-Up | 32.91 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 10.19 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Cognitive Fusion (Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire) | Baseline | 32.52 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 10.59 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Cognitive Fusion (Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire) | Baseline | 33.65 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 9.03 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Cognitive Fusion (Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire) | Follow-Up | 32.65 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 10.85 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Cognitive Fusion (Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire) | Baseline | 31.52 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 11.17 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Cognitive Fusion (Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire) | Follow-Up | 29.97 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 9.94 |
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, cognitive delusion were equivalent across timep-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of cognitive defusionp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal levels of cognitive defusionp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of cognitive defusionp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of cognitive defusion across time.p-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance alpha level .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of cognitive defusionp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance alpha level .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between four conditions on levels of cognitive defusionp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Primary
Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Avoidance)
Participants rated their avoidance of their body-related thought on a visual analogue scale that ranges from 0-100. Higher scores means greater avoidance of the thought.
Time frame: Baseline, Post-Intervention (Day 1), and Follow-up (Day 7)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Avoidance) | Baseline | 59.39 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 35.3 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Avoidance) | Follow-up | 56.45 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 32.38 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Avoidance) | Post-intervention | 53.42 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 34.13 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Avoidance) | Baseline | 50.63 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 34.73 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Avoidance) | Follow-up | 39.07 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 32.97 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Avoidance) | Post-intervention | 52.11 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 36.92 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Avoidance) | Post-intervention | 46.45 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 33.41 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Avoidance) | Baseline | 44.52 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 32.93 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Avoidance) | Follow-up | 36.87 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 32.38 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Avoidance) | Baseline | 51.81 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 32.95 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Avoidance) | Follow-up | 36.48 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 32.14 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Avoidance) | Post-intervention | 45.52 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 32.5 |
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, avoidance of target thought were equivalent across timep-value: <0.01ANOVA
Comparison: Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in avoidance of target thought from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in avoidance from baseline to post-interventionp-value: >0.05t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in avoidance of target thought from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in avoidance from post-intervention to follow-up.p-value: <0.05t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would show equal avoidance of target thoughtp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal avoidance of target thoughtp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all 4 conditions were equivalent in avoidance of target thoughtp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in avoidance of target thought across time.p-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on avoidance of target thoughtp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between 4 conditions on avoidance of target thoughtp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Primary
Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Believability)
Participants rated the believability of their body-related thought on a visual analogue scale that ranges from 0-100. Higher scores means greater believability of this negative thought.
Time frame: Baseline, Post-Intervention (Day 1), and Follow-up (Day 7)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Believability) | Baseline | 78.33 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 24.01 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Believability) | Follow-up | 53.11 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 33.44 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Believability) | Post-intervention | 61.56 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 29.93 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Believability) | Baseline | 77.97 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 25.47 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Believability) | Follow-up | 46.94 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 28.15 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Believability) | Post-intervention | 62.09 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 27.8 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Believability) | Post-intervention | 65.90 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 25.01 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Believability) | Baseline | 83.23 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 19.97 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Believability) | Follow-up | 53.68 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 27.02 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Believability) | Baseline | 74.74 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 22.42 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Believability) | Follow-up | 45.52 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 26.3 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Believability) | Post-intervention | 55.23 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 31.88 |
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental,control) × 2(Activity: singing,verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, believability of thought were equivalent across timep-value: <0.001ANOVA
Comparison: A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure differences in believability of thought from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant difference in believability of thought from baseline to post-interventionp-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure differences from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in believability of thought from post-intervention to follow-up.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal believability scoresp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal believability scoresp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in believability scoresp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions have equivalent believability scores across time.p-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on believability scoresp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no significant difference between 4 conditions on believabilityp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Primary
Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Discomfort)
Participants rated the discomfort of their body-related thought on a visual analogue scale that ranges from 0-100. Higher scores means that the thought is perceived to be more uncomfortable.
Time frame: Baseline, Post-Intervention (Day 1), and Follow-up (Day 7)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Discomfort) | Baseline | 79.97 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 20.73 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Discomfort) | Follow-up | 51.45 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 29.84 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Discomfort) | Post-intervention | 59.48 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 28.55 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Discomfort) | Baseline | 63.48 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 33.62 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Discomfort) | Follow-up | 46.85 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 35.2 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Discomfort) | Post-intervention | 54.93 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 37.19 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Discomfort) | Post-intervention | 53.42 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 33.49 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Discomfort) | Baseline | 74.06 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 28.61 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Discomfort) | Follow-up | 42.74 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 34.06 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Discomfort) | Baseline | 69.90 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 31.77 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Discomfort) | Follow-up | 41.61 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 29.96 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Discomfort) | Post-intervention | 54.42 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 31.75 |
Comparison: Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at p\< .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, levels of discomfort were equivalent across time.p-value: <0.001ANOVA
Comparison: Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in levels of discomfort from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would have no significant differences in discomfort levels from baseline to post-intervention across samplesp-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in levels of discomfort from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in discomfort levels from post-intervention to follow-up across samplesp-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of discomfortp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal levels of discomfortp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of discomfortp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of discomfort across timep-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of discomfortp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no significant difference between 4 conditions on discomfort levelsp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Primary
Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Negativity)
Participants rated the negativity of their body-related thought on a visual analogue scale that ranges from 0-100. Higher scores means that the negative thought is perceived to be more negative.
Time frame: Baseline, Post-Intervention (Day 1), and Follow-Up (Day 7)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Negativity) | Baseline | 68.96 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 29.04 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Negativity) | Follow-up | 66.78 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 30.52 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Negativity) | Post-intervention | 70.93 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 28.22 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Negativity) | Baseline | 75.39 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 28.22 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Negativity) | Follow-up | 65.88 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 32.21 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Negativity) | Post-intervention | 68.64 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 32.3 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Negativity) | Post-intervention | 66.06 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 31.26 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Negativity) | Baseline | 71.61 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 28.07 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Negativity) | Follow-up | 48.58 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 34 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Negativity) | Baseline | 71.90 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 27.67 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Negativity) | Follow-up | 47.74 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 33.38 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Negativity) | Post-intervention | 59.90 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 33.99 |
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, appraisal of target thought were equivalent across time.p-value: <0.001ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent across time.p-value: =0.005ANOVA
Comparison: Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in negativity from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: the control conditions would have no significant difference in negativity from baseline to post-interventionp-value: =0.002t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in negativity from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: the control conditions would have no significant difference in negativity from post-intervention to follow-up.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure differences in negativity from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant difference in negativity scores from baseline to post-intervention in the experimental conditionsp-value: >0.025t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in negativity from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: the experimental conditions would have no significant difference in negativity scores from post-intervention to follow-up.p-value: >0.025t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal negativity scoresp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal negativity scoresp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in negativity scoresp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on negativity scoresp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between four conditions on negativity scoresp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Primary
Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Willingness)
Participants rated their willingness to have their body-related thought on a visual analogue scale that ranges from 0-100. Higher scores means that they are more willing to have the thought.
Time frame: Baseline, Post-Intervention (Day 1), and Follow-up (Day 7)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Willingness) | Baseline | 61.03 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 28.05 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Willingness) | Follow-up | 55.15 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 30.54 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Willingness) | Post-intervention | 52.58 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 31.49 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Willingness) | Baseline | 62.41 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 30.87 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Willingness) | Follow-up | 50.22 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 30.92 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Willingness) | Post-intervention | 55.15 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 31.04 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Willingness) | Post-intervention | 53.55 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 33.72 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Willingness) | Baseline | 65.74 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 29.83 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Willingness) | Follow-up | 45.10 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 29.24 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Willingness) | Baseline | 60.90 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 23.29 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Willingness) | Follow-up | 48.39 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 30.94 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Thought Appraisals (Willingness) | Post-intervention | 58.42 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 24.1 |
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, willingness to engage with target thought were equivalent across timep-value: <0.001ANOVA
Comparison: Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in willingness to engage with target thought from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no difference in willingness scores from baseline to post-interventionp-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in willingness to engage with target thought from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant difference in willingness scores from post-intervention to follow-up.p-value: =0.053t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal willingness scoresp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal willingness to engage with the target thoughtp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all 4 conditions were equivalent in willingness to engagep-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in willingness to engage with the target thought across time.p-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on willingness to engagep-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between 4 conditions on willingness to engagep-value: >0.05ANOVA
Secondary
Self-Rating of Homework Adherence (Homework Adherence Questionnaire)
Homework adherence was determined by the total number of seconds spent practicing the defusion technique over the course of the week. There is no total scale range available for this measure.
Time frame: Homework completion across seven days (14 time points)
Population: Many homework log entries were missing due to failure to return the forms, forgetting to fill out the form, or not practicing. As such, 61 of 122 participants provided enough data to be included in this homework compliance analysis.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Rating of Homework Adherence (Homework Adherence Questionnaire) | 32.64 seconds per week | Standard Deviation 8.25 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Rating of Homework Adherence (Homework Adherence Questionnaire) | 29.79 seconds per week | Standard Deviation 1.07 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Rating of Homework Adherence (Homework Adherence Questionnaire) | 29.81 seconds per week | Standard Deviation 1.43 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Rating of Homework Adherence (Homework Adherence Questionnaire) | 32.24 seconds per week | Standard Deviation 6.1 |
Comparison: All mediation analyses were conducted using the PROCESS SPSS macro version 3.2 (Hayes, 2018). We tested model 4, which includes one outcome variable, one predictor, one mediator, and room for covariates. We examined the meditational effect of homework adherence on the relationship between intervention and each outcome measure. Null: homework adherence does not mediate any relationships between intervention condition and outcome measures.p-value: >0.05Mediation Analyses
Comparison: All mediation analyses were conducted using the PROCESS SPSS macro version 3.2 (Hayes, 2018). We tested model 4, which includes one outcome variable, one predictor, one mediator, and room for covariates. We examined the meditational effect of homework adherence on the relationship between activity and each outcome measure. Null: homework adherence does not mediate any relationships between activity condition and outcome measures.p-value: >0.05Mediation Analyses
Secondary
Self-Rating of Thought-Shape Fusion (Thought-Shape Fusion Questionnaire)
The Thought-Shape Fusion Questionnaire was used to assess the extent to which thinking about a forbidden food or behaviour produces a change in one's perception of their body shape and weight. It is a 34-item measure that asks participants to rate how well an item describes them on a 5 point Likert scale from 0 to 4. Total scores can range from 0 to 136, with higher scores indicating greater fusion to body- or food-related thoughts.
Time frame: Baseline
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Rating of Thought-Shape Fusion (Thought-Shape Fusion Questionnaire) | 43.67 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 37.7 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Rating of Thought-Shape Fusion (Thought-Shape Fusion Questionnaire) | 45.56 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 39.79 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Rating of Thought-Shape Fusion (Thought-Shape Fusion Questionnaire) | 32.77 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 29.94 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Rating of Thought-Shape Fusion (Thought-Shape Fusion Questionnaire) | 35.65 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 26.18 |
Comparison: All moderation analyses were conducted using the PROCESS SPSS macro version 3.2 (Hayes, 2018). We tested model 1, which includes one outcome variable, one predictor, and one moderator. Thought-shape fusion was examined as a potential moderator of the relationship between intervention condition and outcome measures. Null: thought-shape fusion does not significantly moderate the relationship between intervention condition and state self-esteemp-value: <0.001Moderation Analyses
Secondary
Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Appearance Dissatisfaction)
Participants rated their appearance dissatisfaction on a visual analogue scale that ranges from 0-100. Higher scores means greater appearance dissatisfaction.
Time frame: Baseline, Post-Intervention (Day 1), and Follow-up (Day 7)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Appearance Dissatisfaction) | Baseline | 55.18 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 31.77 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Appearance Dissatisfaction) | Follow-up | 51.03 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 27.01 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Appearance Dissatisfaction) | Post-intervention | 51.24 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 28.79 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Appearance Dissatisfaction) | Baseline | 58.67 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 33.63 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Appearance Dissatisfaction) | Follow-up | 46.41 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 30.78 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Appearance Dissatisfaction) | Post-intervention | 57.67 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 31.12 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Appearance Dissatisfaction) | Post-intervention | 50.26 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 29 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Appearance Dissatisfaction) | Baseline | 47.55 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 31.88 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Appearance Dissatisfaction) | Follow-up | 35.26 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 28.47 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Appearance Dissatisfaction) | Baseline | 50.90 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 32.9 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Appearance Dissatisfaction) | Follow-up | 44.81 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 24.46 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Appearance Dissatisfaction) | Post-intervention | 50.87 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 33.27 |
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, appearance dissatisfaction were equivalent across time.p-value: <0.001ANOVA
Comparison: Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in appearance dissatisfaction from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: the control conditions would have no significant difference in appearance dissatisfaction from baseline to post-interventionp-value: >0.05t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in appearance dissatisfaction from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: the control conditions would have no significant difference in appearance dissatisfaction from post-intervention to follow-up.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal appearance dissatisfactionp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal appearance dissatisfaction scoresp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in appearance dissatisfactionp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in appearance dissatisfaction across time.p-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on appearance dissatisfactionp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between four conditions on appearance dissatisfactionp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Secondary
Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Weight Dissatisfaction)
Participants rated their weight dissatisfaction on a visual analogue scale that ranges from 0-100. Higher scores means greater weight dissatisfaction.
Time frame: Baseline, Post-Intervention (Day 1), and Follow-up (Day 7)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Weight Dissatisfaction) | Baseline | 59.15 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 31.28 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Weight Dissatisfaction) | Follow-Up | 49.64 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 27.52 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Weight Dissatisfaction) | Post-intervention | 51.70 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 28.13 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Weight Dissatisfaction) | Baseline | 71.22 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 29.22 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Weight Dissatisfaction) | Follow-Up | 52.85 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 32.04 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Weight Dissatisfaction) | Post-intervention | 62.33 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 30.05 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Weight Dissatisfaction) | Post-intervention | 50.81 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 33.03 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Weight Dissatisfaction) | Baseline | 66.10 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 33.09 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Weight Dissatisfaction) | Follow-Up | 45.39 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 30.52 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Weight Dissatisfaction) | Baseline | 68.68 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 29.11 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Weight Dissatisfaction) | Follow-Up | 50.45 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 26.84 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Body Image Cognitions (Weight Dissatisfaction) | Post-intervention | 58.81 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 32.07 |
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, weight dissatisfaction were equivalent across time.p-value: <0.001ANOVA
Comparison: Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in weight dissatisfaction from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in weight dissatisfaction from baseline to post-interventionp-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure differences in weight dissatisfaction from post-intervention to follow-up. Null: there would be no differences in weight dissatisfaction from post-intervention to follow-upp-value: <0.05t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal weight dissatisfactionp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal weight dissatisfaction scoresp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all 4 conditions were equivalent in weight dissatisfactionp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in weight dissatisfaction across time.p-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on weight dissatisfactionp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between four conditions on weight dissatisfactionp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Secondary
Self-ratings of Body Image Distress (Body Image State Scale)
The Body Image State Scale was used as part of a standard questionnaire package to measure changes in body image cognitions. Participants rated 6 items on a 9-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 9, for a possible total score of 6 to 54, with higher scores indicating greater body image satisfaction (i.e. positive body image).
Time frame: Baseline, Post-Intervention (Day 1), and Follow-up (Day 7)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-ratings of Body Image Distress (Body Image State Scale) | Baseline | 26.64 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 8.38 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-ratings of Body Image Distress (Body Image State Scale) | Follow-up | 29.12 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 10.28 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-ratings of Body Image Distress (Body Image State Scale) | Post-intervention | 27.82 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 9.35 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-ratings of Body Image Distress (Body Image State Scale) | Baseline | 25.44 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 9.12 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-ratings of Body Image Distress (Body Image State Scale) | Follow-up | 28.19 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 10.96 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-ratings of Body Image Distress (Body Image State Scale) | Post-intervention | 26.41 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 9.6 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-ratings of Body Image Distress (Body Image State Scale) | Post-intervention | 27.81 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 8.96 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-ratings of Body Image Distress (Body Image State Scale) | Baseline | 25.71 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 8.25 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-ratings of Body Image Distress (Body Image State Scale) | Follow-up | 30.61 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 8.75 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-ratings of Body Image Distress (Body Image State Scale) | Baseline | 24.74 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 8.75 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-ratings of Body Image Distress (Body Image State Scale) | Follow-up | 30.48 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 9.38 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-ratings of Body Image Distress (Body Image State Scale) | Post-intervention | 26.32 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 7.56 |
Comparison: A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure the difference in state body image satisfaction from post intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in state body image satisfaction from post-intervention to follow-up.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, body state image satisfaction were equivalent across timep-value: <0.001ANOVA
Comparison: A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure the difference in state body image satisfaction from baseline to post intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in state body image satisfaction from baseline to post intervention.p-value: <0.05t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal body state image satisfactionp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal state body satisfaction scoresp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in state body image satisfactionp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in state body image satisfaction across time.p-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance alpha level .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on state body image satisfactionp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance alpha level.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between four conditions on state body image satisfactionp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Secondary
Self-Ratings of Mood (Anxiety)
Participants rated their anxiety on a visual analogue scale that ranges from 0-100. Higher scores means greater anxiety.
Time frame: Baseline, Post-Intervention (Day 1), and Follow-up (Day 7)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Anxiety) | Baseline | 51.45 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 31.39 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Anxiety) | Follow-up | 41.48 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 29.81 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Anxiety) | Post-intervention | 43.55 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 30.08 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Anxiety) | Baseline | 49.15 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 30.14 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Anxiety) | Follow-up | 35.33 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 26.28 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Anxiety) | Post-intervention | 32.67 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 28.25 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Anxiety) | Post-intervention | 27.68 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 27.83 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Anxiety) | Baseline | 37.94 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 28.87 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Anxiety) | Follow-up | 26.74 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 26.78 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Anxiety) | Baseline | 52.68 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 24.44 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Anxiety) | Follow-up | 37.61 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 26.47 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Anxiety) | Post-intervention | 39.65 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 27.81 |
Comparison: Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in anxious mood from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant difference in anxious mood from post-intervention to follow-upp-value: >0.05t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, state body image satisfaction were equivalent across time.p-value: <0.001ANOVA
Comparison: A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure differences in anxious mood from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant difference in anxious mood from baseline to post-intervention.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of anxietyp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal levels of anxietyp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of anxietyp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of anxiety across timep-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of anxietyp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between the four conditions on levels of anxietyp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Secondary
Self-Ratings of Mood (Confidence)
Participants rated their confidence on a visual analogue scale that ranges from 0-100. Higher scores means greater confidence.
Time frame: Baseline, Post-Intervention (Day 1), and Follow-up (Day 7)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Confidence) | Baseline | 48.91 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 26.37 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Confidence) | Follow-up | 46.88 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 26.14 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Confidence) | Post-intervention | 42.12 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 31.34 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Confidence) | Baseline | 40.52 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 25.38 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Confidence) | Follow-up | 43.81 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 25.87 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Confidence) | Post-intervention | 37.30 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 25.72 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Confidence) | Post-intervention | 52.39 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 32.67 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Confidence) | Baseline | 47.77 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 29.97 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Confidence) | Follow-up | 50.26 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 28.09 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Confidence) | Baseline | 42.03 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 22.61 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Confidence) | Follow-up | 47.39 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 27.09 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Confidence) | Post-intervention | 45.26 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 25.95 |
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, levels of confidence were equivalent across time.p-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of confidencep-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal levels of confidencep-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of confidencep-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of confidence across time.p-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of happinessp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no differences between four conditions on levels of happinessp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Secondary
Self-Ratings of Mood (Depression)
Participants rated their depressive mood on a visual analogue scale that ranges from 0-100. Higher scores means greater depressive mood.
Time frame: Baseline, Post-Intervention (Day 1), and Follow-up (Day 7)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Depression) | Baseline | 30.76 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 30.93 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Depression) | Follow-up | 26.82 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 29 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Depression) | Post-intervention | 27.12 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 30.57 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Depression) | Baseline | 27.85 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 28.52 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Depression) | Follow-up | 25.96 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 28.61 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Depression) | Post-intervention | 21.67 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 25.26 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Depression) | Post-intervention | 19.55 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 25.18 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Depression) | Baseline | 25.52 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 25.88 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Depression) | Follow-up | 19.74 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 24.46 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Depression) | Baseline | 36.94 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 29.77 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Depression) | Follow-up | 27.65 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 22.76 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Depression) | Post-intervention | 23.84 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 25.07 |
Comparison: Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in depressive mood from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in depressive mood from post-intervention to follow-up.p-value: >0.05t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, levels of depressive mood were equivalent across time.p-value: <0.001ANOVA
Comparison: Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in depressive mood from depressive mood from baseline to post-interventionp-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of depressive moodp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal levels of depressive moodp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of depressive moodp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of depressive mood across timep-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of depressive moodp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between 4 conditions on levels of depressive moodp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Secondary
Self-Ratings of Mood (Happiness)
Participants rated their happiness on a visual analogue scale that ranges from 0-100. Higher scores means greater happy mood.
Time frame: Baseline, Post-Intervention (Day 1), and Follow-up (Day 7)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Happiness) | Baseline | 57.85 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 24.68 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Happiness) | Follow-up | 50.03 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 26.98 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Happiness) | Post-intervention | 50.15 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 30.82 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Happiness) | Baseline | 54.59 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 24.1 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Happiness) | Follow-up | 49.78 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 29.54 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Happiness) | Post-intervention | 53.63 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 26.47 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Happiness) | Post-intervention | 57.58 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 29.56 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Happiness) | Baseline | 52.00 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 25.15 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Happiness) | Follow-up | 55.35 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 22.72 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Happiness) | Baseline | 51.45 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 21.81 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Happiness) | Follow-up | 49.06 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 25.36 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Mood (Happiness) | Post-intervention | 55.84 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 25.64 |
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, levels of happiness were equivalent across timep-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of happinessp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal levels of happinessp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of happinessp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of happiness across time.p-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of happinessp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no differences between four conditions on levels of happinessp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Secondary
Self-Ratings of Self-Esteem (State Self Esteem Scale)
The State Self Esteem Scale is a 20-item measure used to assess changes in state self esteem, rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Total scores can range from 5 to 100. Higher scores indicate higher self-esteem.
Time frame: Baseline and Follow-up (Day 7)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Self-Esteem (State Self Esteem Scale) | Baseline | 62.36 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 15.6 |
| Sing Negative Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Self-Esteem (State Self Esteem Scale) | Follow-up | 64.52 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 16.3 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Self-Esteem (State Self Esteem Scale) | Follow-up | 61.96 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 14.13 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-related Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Self-Esteem (State Self Esteem Scale) | Baseline | 58.26 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 15.73 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Self-Esteem (State Self Esteem Scale) | Baseline | 59.65 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 17.15 |
| Sing Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Self-Esteem (State Self Esteem Scale) | Follow-up | 65.58 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 16.24 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Self-Esteem (State Self Esteem Scale) | Baseline | 58.58 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 13.9 |
| Verbally Repeat Body-unrelated Thoughts | Self-Ratings of Self-Esteem (State Self Esteem Scale) | Follow-up | 62.97 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 15.48 |
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, level of self-esteem were equivalent across time.p-value: <0.05ANOVA
Comparison: Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in self-esteem from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in self-esteem from post-intervention to follow-up.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of self-esteemp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal levels of self-esteemp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions have equivalent levels of self-esteemp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions have equivalent levels of self-esteem across time.p-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of self-esteemp-value: >0.05ANOVA
Comparison: 28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no differences between four conditions on levels of self-esteemp-value: >0.05ANOVA