Explaining reinforcement and erroneous beliefs in pathological exercise: A commentary and expansion on Coniglio et al. (in press) using the pathways model of disordered gambling.

Abstract

Coniglio, Cooper, and Selby proposed that behavioral reinforcement may be critical for understanding the etiology and maintenance of pathological exercise among people living with anorexia nervosa. They presented three competing hypotheses about why exercise can become problematic: (a) positive reinforcement via biological and behavioral rewards, (b) negative reinforcement via avoidance of aversive states, or (c) a synergistic interplay between positive and negative reinforcement. Herein, we extend Coniglio and colleagues' framework by drawing on theory and research from the field of disordered gambling-a behavior in which reinforcement is an etiological and maintaining mechanism. We applied the pathways model of disordered gambling to the study of pathological exercise and made the following two proposals. First, pathological exercise may be driven by positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, or both (they are not mutually exclusive), depending on the presence or absence of specific co-occurring psychopathologies. Second, erroneous beliefs about the safety and efficacy of maladaptive exercise for weight control may help maintain pathological exercise regardless of the type of reinforcement. We conclude by calling for research that assesses Coniglio and colleagues' novel hypotheses and our supposition that the pathways model can help provide a framework for those hypotheses.