Is all nonhomeostatic eating the same? Examining the latent structure of nonhomeostatic eating processes in women and men
Abstract
Nonhomeostatic eating is a complex (presumably) multidimensional construct associated with negative health outcomes. However, little research has examined the latent structure of nonhomeostatic eating processes, interrelationships among nonhomeostatic eating constructs, and differential associations between nonhomeostatic eating constructs and external correlates. This study adopted a construct validation approach to investigate these research questions in a large sample of undergraduate women and men (N = 998; 54.6% female). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on items from 8 measures representing numerous nonhomeostatic eating process constructs (e.g., binge eating, loss of control [LOC] over eating, "food addiction"). The 7-factor retained solution included the following: (1) emotional eating, (2) external eating, (3) LOC over eating, (4) overeating, (5) distress over nonhomeostatic eating, (6) hedonic hunger, and (7) food addiction. LOC over eating was the nonhomeostatic eating factor most strongly related to other factors (M rs = .71 and .65 in women and men, respectively). Factor score multiple regressions conducted separately by sex indicated that distress over nonhomeostatic eating was related to body mass index, depressive symptoms, and eating-related clinical impairment in both women and men. In women, food addiction demonstrated unique associations with depressive symptoms, emotion dysregulation, and clinical impairment, whereas overeating uniquely predicted these outcomes in men. This is the first comprehensive analysis of the latent structure of nonhomeostatic eating processes and associations with external correlates, and results suggest that LOC over eating, distress over nonhomeostatic eating, food addiction (in women), and overeating (in men) exhibited the strongest relations with psychosocial impairment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Individuals with food addiction have more depressive symptoms than controls.
“Multiple lines of evidence suggest that individuals with FA have more depressive symptoms than controls [60,105,130,150,151,152].”
From Separating the Signal from the Noise: How Psychiatric Diagnoses Can Help Discern Food Addiction from Dietary Restraint (2020) · cites this paper as [150]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 41 · Cited by 23
- Authors
- Racine, S. E., Hagan, K. E., & Schell, S. E.
- Affiliations
- McGill University (CA)
- University of Kansas (US)
- Venue
- Psychological Assessment
- Published
- 2019-10
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1220-1233
- ISSN
- 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-134X
- OpenAlex
- W2949580641
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 4.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
- Keywords
- binge eating, loss of control over eating, food addiction, emotional eating, external eating, overeating, hedonic hunger, sex differences, depressive symptoms, emotional dysregulation, body mass index, undergraduate students
- MeSH terms
- Self-Control, Food Addiction, Psychological Distress, Adolescent, Adult, Bulimia, Depression, Emotions, Feeding Behavior, Female, Humans, Hyperphagia, Male, Sex Factors, Body Mass Index, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review