A survey of eating styles in eight countries: Examining restrained, emotional, intuitive eating and their correlates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Restrained, emotional and intuitive eating were examined in relation to each other and as correlates of participants' weight status, body image and self-esteem. In some past research, restrained and emotional eating have been associated with higher weight status and poorer mental health, while intuitive eating is more frequently linked to lower weight status and more positive well-being. However, these eating styles have rarely been examined together and never in a large cross-country sample. METHOD: Six-thousand two-hundred and seventy-two (6272) emerging adults (M age = 21.54 years, SD = 3.13) completed scales from the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire, the Eating Disorders Examination Questionnaire, the Intuitive Eating Scale-2, the Multidimensional Body Self Relations Questionnaire, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and provided weight and height information that was used to calculate body mass index (BMI). Participants resided in Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Italy, Japan, Spain and the United States and provided information using an online survey. RESULTS: Path analyses for the entire sample revealed significant pathways between higher intuitive eating and higher body satisfaction and self-esteem, and lower BMIs among participants. Higher levels of restrained and emotional eating were associated with lower body satisfaction and self-esteem, and higher BMIs among participants. Minor cross-country differences were evident in these patterns of relations, but intuitive eating emerged as a consistent predictor across countries. CONCLUSION: Overall, findings suggest that efforts should be made to increase intuitive eating among emerging adults and to support individual and macrolevel interventions to decrease restrained and emotional eating behaviours.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".