↓ Skip to main content

Emotional Eating Is Not What You Think It Is and Emotional Eating Scales Do Not Measure What You Think They Measure

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
13 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
120 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
306 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Emotional Eating Is Not What You Think It Is and Emotional Eating Scales Do Not Measure What You Think They Measure
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01932
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peggy Bongers, Anita Jansen

Abstract

In eating research, it is common practice to group people into different eater types, such as emotional, external and restrained eaters. This categorization is generally based on scores on self-report questionnaires. However, recent studies have started to raise questions about the validity of such questionnaires. In the realm of emotional eating, a considerable number of studies, both in the lab and in naturalistic settings, fail to demonstrate increased food intake in emotional situations in self-described emotional eaters. The current paper provides a review of experimental and naturalistic studies investigating the relationships between self-reported emotional eater status, mood, and food consumption. It is concluded that emotional eating scales lack predictive and discriminative validity; they cannot be assumed to measure accurately what they intend to measure, namely increased food intake in response to negative emotions. The review is followed by a discussion of alternative interpretations of emotional eating scores that have been suggested in the past few years, i.e., concerned eating, uncontrolled eating, a tendency to attribute overeating to negative affect, and cue-reactive eating.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 306 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Unknown 305 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 16%
Student > Bachelor 49 16%
Student > Master 38 12%
Researcher 21 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 5%
Other 42 14%
Unknown 91 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 95 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 8%
Neuroscience 13 4%
Social Sciences 10 3%
Other 28 9%
Unknown 107 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 109. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 January 2024.
All research outputs
#378,557
of 25,107,281 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#778
of 33,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,918
of 431,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#11
of 416 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,107,281 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,893 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 431,634 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 416 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.