Changes in affect longitudinally mediate associations between emotion regulation strategy use and disordered eating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Trait-level emotion regulation (ER) difficulties are associated with eating disorders (EDs) transdiagnostically. However, little research has examined whether within-person fluctuations in ER longitudinally predict ED behaviors in daily life or the mechanisms of ER effects. Investigating daily ER could help us better understand why people experience ED behaviors at a given time. We examined whether day-to-day changes in adaptive (e.g., cognitive reappraisal) and maladaptive (e.g., rumination) ER longitudinally predicted core ED behaviors (binge eating, purging, dieting) and whether changes in affect mediated effects. METHOD: Female participants (N = 688) ages 15-30 from the Michigan State University Twin Registry reported their adaptive and maladaptive ER use, negative affect (NA), positive affect (PA), binge eating, purging, and dieting on 49 consecutive days. Using structural equation modeling, we examined whether within-person fluctuations in ER predicted same- and next-day ED behaviors and whether changes in affect mediated longitudinal ER effects. RESULTS: Greater maladaptive ER predicted increased likelihood of same-day binge eating and next-day binge eating and purging. The association between maladaptive ER and next-day binge eating and purging was mediated by increased next-day NA. In contrast, dieting was more closely related to changes in PA. Adaptive ER did not predict reduced likelihood of any ED behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Maladaptive ER may longitudinally increase risk for binge eating and purging by amplifying NA. Interventions focused on decreasing maladaptive ER and subsequent NA might help disrupt binge eating-purging cycles. Conversely, results add to evidence that PA fluctuations may play a unique role in maintaining restrictive behaviors. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: Little is known about how daily changes in emotion regulation may impact disordered eating. We found that maladaptive emotion regulation (e.g., rumination) was associated with a higher likelihood of binge eating and purging on the next day because it predicted increased next-day negative affect. In contrast, dieting was more closely tied to fluctuations in positive affect. Targeting daily emotion regulation and affective processes may help disrupt cycles of disordered 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".