A daily diary study of emotion regulation as a moderator of negative affect‐binge eating associations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While negative affect (NA) typically increases risk for binge eating, the ultimate impact of NA may depend on a person's ability to regulate their emotions. In this daily, longitudinal study, we examined whether emotion regulation (ER) modified the strength of NA-dysregulated eating associations. METHODS: Women (N = 311) from the Michigan State University Twin Registry first reported dimensional binge eating symptoms and broad ER difficulties (e.g., limited emotional awareness, difficulty controlling emotional impulses). Participants then rated use of adaptive (cognitive reappraisal, social sharing, situation modification, and acceptance) and maladaptive (rumination, expressive suppression, and self-criticism) ER strategies, emotional eating (EE), objective binge eating (OBE), and NA once daily for 49 consecutive days. RESULTS: There were several main effects of ER on binge-eating pathology in both between-person (i.e., comparing women who differed on average) and within-person (i.e., examining fluctuations in variables day-to-day) analyses. Between-person, greater broad ER difficulties, greater maladaptive strategy use, and lower adaptive strategy use were all associated with greater binge-eating pathology. Within-person, greater maladaptive strategy use was associated with greater odds of OBE on that day and on the following day. However, neither broad ER difficulties nor use of specific strategies moderated associations between NA and dysregulated eating in between- or within-person analyses. CONCLUSIONS: While ER is independently associated with risk for dysregulated eating, it may not fully mitigate the impact of NA. Additional strategies (e.g., decreasing environmental stressors and increasing social support) may be needed to minimize NA and its impact on dysregulated eating. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: Negative affect (NA; e.g., sadness, guilt) increases dysregulated eating risk. Because NA is sometimes unavoidable, we examined whether emotion regulation (ER; i.e., how a person responds to their emotions) might impact whether NA leads to dysregulated eating. Although more effective ER was associated with less dysregulated eating overall, ER did not impact the association between NA and dysregulated eating. Other approaches may therefore be needed to mitigate NA-dysregulated eating associations.
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) | 0.001 | 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".