Do emotional eating urges regulate affect? Concurrent and prospective associations and implications for risk models of binge eating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Emotional eating (EE) reflects an urge to eat in response to emotional rather than physical cues and is a risk factor for the development of binge eating. EE has been conceptualized as an attempt to regulate negative affect (NA), a posited maintenance factor for binge eating. However, no study has examined whether EE urges regulate affect. Further, no studies have examined longitudinal associations between EE urges and positive affect (PA). METHOD: We examined within-subject longitudinal associations between affect and EE urges in a community-based sample of female twins (mean age = 17.8 years). Participants (N = 239) completed ratings of affect and EE urges for 45 consecutive days. RESULTS: Greater NA was concurrently associated with greater EE urges. Additionally, greater EE urges predicted worse NA for both concurrent and prospective (next-day) analyses. Finally, lower PA was associated with greater EE urges in concurrent analyses, but there were no prospective associations between changes in PA and EE urges. DISCUSSION: EE urges do not appear to effectively regulate affect. EE urges in a community-based sample appear to have the same functional relationship with affect as binge eating in clinical samples, further supporting EE as a useful dimensional construct for examining processes related to binge eating.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".