An investigation into the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and food addiction: The role of urgency and emotion dysregulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food addiction is one of the most common substance or behavioural addictions and is linked to negative consequences. Thus, there is a need to investigate the risk factors associated with food addiction. The current study examined if emotion dysregulation mediated the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and food addiction and whether affective impulsivity (negative and positive urgency) uniquely moderated this relationship. Participants ( N = 602) recruited from a large university completed an online survey consisting of several self-report measures, including symptoms of food addiction, childhood adversity, emotion dysregulation and affective impulsivity. A total of 6.5% of the participants met the cut-off for mild ( n = 39) levels of food addiction, 3.8% met the cut-off for moderate ( n = 23), and 5.0% met the cut-off for severe ( n = 30) food addiction. Logistic regression results demonstrated that physical neglect, emotional abuse, physical abuse and household substance use were significant predictors of whether someone met the criteria for food addiction. Moderated mediation results indicated that adverse childhood experiences were positively associated with emotion dysregulation, affective impulsivity, and food addiction. However, contrary to our hypothesis we did not find significant moderated-mediation between emotion dysregulation, food addiction and affective impulsivity. The findings may carry implications for preventing and treating food addiction among university students with adverse childhood experiences. Future longitudinal research is necessary to understand how experiences of childhood adversities and emotion dysregulation can increase the risk of developing food addiction. • Childhood adversities predict emotion dysregulation, urgency, and food addiction. • Emotion dysregulation and food addiction are significantly associated. • We did not find support for our hypothesized moderated-mediation model. • Emotion regulation skills may help individuals with food addiction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".