EDITORIAL BOARD Robert Davison Aviles, Bradley University Harley E. Baker, California State University–Channel Islands Jean-Guy Blais, Universite de Montreal, Canada Catherine Y. Chang, Georgia State University Robert C. Chope, San Francisco State University Kevin O. Cokley, University of Missouri, Columbia Patricia B. Elmore, Southern Illinois University Shawn Fitzgerald, Kent State University John J. Fremer, Educational Testing Service Vicente Ponsoda Gil, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Spain Jo-Ida C. Hansen, University of Minnesota Charles C. Healy, University of California at Los Angeles Robin K. Henson, University of North Texas Flaviu Adrian Hodis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand Janet K. Holt, Northern Illinois University David A. Jepsen, The University of Iowa Gregory Arief D. Liem, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University Wei-Cheng J. Mau, Wichita State University Larry Maucieri, Governors State College Patricia Jo McDivitt, Data Recognition Corporation Peter F. Merenda, University of Rhode Island Matthew J. Miller, University of Maryland Ralph O. Mueller, University of Hartford Jane E. Myers, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro Philip D. Parker, University of Western Sydney Ralph L. Piedmont, Loyola College in Maryland Alex L. Pieterse, University at Albany, SUNY Nicholas J. Ruiz, Winona State University James P. Sampson, Jr., Florida State University William D. Schafer, University of Maryland, College Park William E. Sedlacek, University of Maryland, College Park Marie F. Shoffner, University of Virginia Len Sperry, Florida Atlantic University Kevin Stoltz, University of Mississippi Jody L. Swartz-Kulstad, Seton Hall University Bruce Thompson, Texas A&M University Timothy R. Vansickle, Minnesota Department of Education Steve Vensel, Palm Beach Atlantic University Dan Williamson, Lindsey Wilson College F. Robert Wilson, University of Cincinnati

measurement and evaluation in counseling and Development

Social Phobia: Diagnosis, Assessment, and Treatment

We examined the associations of emotional eating and depressive symptoms with the consumption of sweet and non-sweet energy-dense foods and vegetables/fruit, also focusing on the possible interplay between emotional eating and depressive symptoms. The participants were 25–64-year-old Finnish men ( n  = 1679) and women ( n  = 2035) from the FINRISK 2007 Study (DILGOM substudy). The Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire-R18, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, and a 132-item Food Frequency Questionnaire were used. Emotional eating and depressive symptoms correlated positively ( r  = 0.31 among men and women), and both were related to a higher body mass. Emotional eating was related to a higher consumption of sweet foods in both genders and non-sweet foods in men independently of depressive symptoms and restrained eating. The positive associations of depressive symptoms with sweet foods became non-significant after adjustment for emotional eating, but this was not the case for non-sweet foods. Depressive symptoms, but not emotional eating, were related to a lower consumption of vegetables/fruit. These findings suggest that emotional eating and depressive symptoms both affect unhealthy food choices. Emotional eating could be one factor explaining the association between depressive symptoms and consumption of sweet foods, while other factors may be more important with respect to non-sweet foods and vegetables/fruit.

Emotional eating, depressive symptoms and self-reported food consumption. A population-based study

As the COVID-19 global health disaster continues to unfold across the world, calls have been made to address the associated mental illness public crisis. The current paper seeks to broaden these ca...

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17439760.2021.1871945

Positive psychology in a pandemic: buffering, bolstering, and building mental health

The last few decades testify that consumers’ concerns for healthier lifestyles and environment care are driving forces for reshaping food buying intentions and their perspectives on food quality. The present study identifies the importance that consumers attach to quality, health, and environment selected cues of purchased food products. More precisely, to elicit preferences for social, environmental, and qualitative food cues, a survey instrument was developed and applied on 797 Belgian and Romanian consumers. Our findings suggest that investigated consumers most frequently use freshness, taste, and appearance to evaluate food quality. The use frequency of food quality cues related to health is primarily influenced by the attention paid to food quality. The most relevant cues of food healthiness are ingredients, nutrition facts, and additives and for food environmental impact are packaging, food origin, and production type. It is concluded that food quality receives high attention both from Belgian and Romanian consumers and health and environment related cues can be used as a means of improving consumer health and environmental protection.

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8673015/file/8673469.pdf

Consumer Understanding of Food Quality, Healthiness, and Environmental Impact: A Cross-National Perspective

Objectives Physical activity and healthy eating seem to be protective against experiencing stress and negative affect as well as increase positive affect. At the same time, previous studies showed that people reduce salutogenic behaviours such as physical activity and healthy eating in the face of stress and negative affect while increasing such behaviours in the context of positive affect. Due to daily fluctuations of these behaviours, the present study examined these relationships in daily life using ecological momentary assessment (EMA). Design and methods Fifty-one university students responded to six daily prompts during 7 days via smartphone-based EMA. Items examined stress, emotional experience, physical activity duration, and healthy eating. Results Higher stress and negative affect, as well as lower positive affect, were related to a reduction in subsequent physical activity. Higher physical activity levels, in turn, were associated with less subsequent stress and negative affect, as well as more positive affect. No such effects for stress and affect on healthy eating or vice versa were found. Conclusions Engaging in physical activity is related to better mood and less stress/negative affect over the next several hours in daily life. Prevention efforts therefore may benefit by focusing on promoting physical activity, particularly when stress/negative affect is high to 'break the cycle' of inactivity, stress, and negative affect. Potential effects of healthy eating might be more subtle and characterized by interindividual differences or state effects. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Physical activity can reduce stress as well as negative emotions and can enhance positive emotions. People tend to eat less healthy food during stressful times, and healthy eating can increase general health. Physical activity and healthy eating have been mostly assessed separately and through retrospective methods. What does this study add? This is an EMA study investigating bidirectional effects of stress, emotions, and salutogenic behaviour. After physical activity, people felt less stressed/negative and more positive; feeling better and less stressed resulted in more physical activity. Healthy eating was not associated with stress or emotion level and vice versa.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/bjhp.12355

Bidirectional relationship of stress and affect with physical activity and healthy eating

No haste, more taste: An EMA study of the effects of stress, negative and positive emotions on eating behavior

Food cravings in everyday life: An EMA study on snack-related thoughts, cravings, and consumption.

Existing self-report questionnaires for the assessment of emotional eating do not differentiate between specific types of emotions and between increased or decreased food intake in response to these emotions. Therefore, we developed a new measure of emotional eating—the Salzburg Emotional Eating Scale (SEES)—for which higher scores indicate eating more than usual in response to emotions and lower scores indicate eating less than usual in response to emotions. In study 1, a pool of items describing 40 emotional states was used. Factor analysis yielded four factors, which represented both positive (happiness subscale) and negative emotions (sadness, anger, and anxiety subscales). Subsequently, the scale was reduced to 20 items (5 items for each subscale) and its four-factor structure was replicated in studies 2 and 3. In all three studies, internal consistencies of each subscale were  > .70 and mean subscale scores significantly differed from each other such that individuals reported the strongest tendency to eat more than usual when being sad and the strongest tendency to eat less than usual when being anxious (sadness > happiness > anger > anxiety). Higher scores on the happiness subscale related to lower scores on the negative emotions subscales, lower body mass index (BMI), and lower eating pathology. In contrast, higher scores on the negative emotions subscales related to lower scores on the happiness subscale, higher BMI, and higher eating pathology. The SEES represents a useful measure for the investigation of emotional eating by increasing both specificity (differentiation between specific emotional states) and breadth (differentiation between increase and decrease of food intake) in the assessment of the emotion–eating relationship.

/pdf/development-and-preliminary-validation-of-the-salzburg-3twfwi42nz.pdf

Development and Preliminary Validation of the Salzburg Emotional Eating Scale.

Individuals with anorexia nervosa (AN) and bulimia nervosa (BN) show emotion regulation deficits. While individuals with BN use binge eating to regulate negative affect, individuals with restricting-type AN may use self-starvation for this purpose. The current study examined the emotion regulatory function of over- and undereating in response to different emotional states in women with restrictive AN (n = 54), BN (n = 47), and women without eating disorders (n = 68). Participants completed self-report measures assessing the use of emotion regulation strategies and emotional eating. Both patient groups reported using more dysfunctional and less functional emotion regulation strategies than controls. The BN group reported eating more than usual in response to negative emotions but less than usual in response to positive emotions. In contrast, the AN group reported eating more than usual in response to positive emotions and less than usual in response to negative emotions. More dysfunctional emotion regulation related to eating less in response to negative emotions in the AN group. Less functional emotion regulation related to eating less when being happy in the BN group. The current study highlights the need to differentiate between different eating outcomes and different emotional states when examining emotion effects on food intake.

Julia Reichenberger

Papers

Bidirectional relationship of stress and affect with physical activity and healthy eating

No haste, more taste: An EMA study of the effects of stress, negative and positive emotions on eating behavior

Food cravings in everyday life: An EMA study on snack-related thoughts, cravings, and consumption.

Development and Preliminary Validation of the Salzburg Emotional Eating Scale.

Emotion regulation and emotional eating in anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa