Eating tasty foods to cope,enhance reward,socialize or conform: What other psychological characteristics describe each of these motives?

Abstract

Psychological characteristics associated with eating motives of the Palatable Eating Motives Scale (PEMS) were identified in 192 undergraduates. Coping was characterized by greater BMI, emotion-triggered eating, and eating concern and also by binge-eating and perceived stress reactivity in females. Reward Enhancement was characterized by greater BMI, anxiety- and depression-eating in females and by anger/frustration-eating in males. Conformity was strongly characterized by binge-eating and by failure-based stress and all eating disorder traits in females and by anger/frustration- and anxiety-eating in males. The sex-divergent patterns of these traits across PEMS motives highlight the heterogeneity of hedonic eating. The traits may also be maintaining the motives, hence adresseing them should improve treatments for obesity, binge-eating, and foster healthier coping, reward, and psychosocial interactions.

Keywords

binge-eating coping diet eating behavior obesity

Introduction

Eating highly palatable foods that are typically calorie-dense can contribute to obesity and are also salient in binge-eating (Astrup and Brand-Miller, 2012; Kales, 1990). Because these foods also tend to be generally low in nutrition, for example, “junk food,” they can undermine one’s dietary health if eaten too frequently in place of healthier foods (Zizza et al., 2001). Moreover, if these foods are used to deal with challenging life events, they can also adversely affect psychological health. Thus, knowing an individual’s motivation to eat these foods is important in helping to prevent and treat obesity, binge-eating, poor nutrition and maladaptive use of food. It was for this reason that the Palatable Eating Motives Scale (PEMS) was developed (Burgess et al., 2014).

The PEMS identifies four distinct motives for consuming highly palatable foods and drinks: Coping, Reward Enhancement, Social, and Conformity motives (Burgess et al., 2014). Those eating primarily for Coping motives eat to forget about worries and problems, and to feel better if experiencing negative moods and situations. Eating for Reward Enhancement is primarily done to experience pleasure and the excitement of the food itself. Eating for Social motives is done to increase enjoyment of parties and other gatherings. Eating for Conformity motives involves giving in to pressures from family or friends or fitting in with others.

In previous studies, some of the PEMS motives were found to be associated with body mass index (BMI) and binge-eating in college students and weight-loss-seeking patients. Coping was associated with higher BMI, binge-eating severity, and avoidance of punishment while Reward Enhancement motives were only characterized with binge-eating severity. Social motives, as expected, appeared to be most free of consequences as they neither predicted increasing BMI nor binge-eating in either student or patient populations. However, Conformity was associated with greater binge-eating severity in college students, but not as strongly as Coping and Reward Enhancement. Within the motives, Reward Enhancement was most strongly related to Coping, possibly because both are internally driven reasons for eating tasty foods. Conversely, the externally driven eating for Social and Conformity motives were more strongly correlated to each other than to the two internally driven motives (Boggiano et al., 2014, 2015a; Burgess et al., 2014).

In comparison, less is known about psychological characteristics that might drive eating for the different PEMS motives. For example, are people who eat palatable foods to Cope also more likely to have urges to eat when feeling negative emotions, and if so, which negative emotions? Are any PEMS motives associated with stress resulting from failure, work overload, social conflict, or social evaluation? Are the PEMS motives associated with other eating disorder symptoms in addition to binge-eating severity such as dietary restraint and eating, weight, and shape concerns? Therefore, the objective of this study was to identify additional emotional, stress-related, and eating disorder correlates of the PEMS motives for eating palatable foods in a college student population. College students are a population at risk for binge-eating and rapid weight gain which can lead to obesity (Hudson et al., 2007; Nikolaou et al., 2014). Any psychological characteristics found to be associated with the different PEMS motives may be factors that serve to maintain the habitual nature of the motives, some of which, as described above, have already been linked to increasing BMI and binge-eating severity.

The Coping and Reward motives were hypothesized to be characterized by eating disorder symptoms and urges to eat from negative emotions due to previously observed associations with binge-eating and BMI. Social motives would have the least, if any, association with the measured characteristics, which would support the normative nature of this motive. Finally, the Conformity motive was hypothesized to be associated with some types of stress reactivities as stress can result from trying to please others, to keep up with the demands of others, or to meet one’s own high standards. However, underscoring these attempts is the desire to fit in, to be liked, and to achieve what society values, all of which align with conformity. By this reasoning, Conformity motives to eat should also be associated with urges to eat spurred by anxiety. The importance of uncovering characteristics associated with the PEMS motives is that they can serve as additional treatment targets to improve dietary nutrition; to lower the risk of developing obesity or eating disorders; and to improve coping, reward acquisition, and interpersonal skills without the use of food.

Method

Participants

A total of 192 undergraduate students at The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) with a mean age of 21.3 years, standard deviation (SD) = 4.0 participated as part of a larger study. Of these, 56 percent were female (37% African-American, 46% non-Hispanic White, and 17% “Other”) and 44 percent were male (17% African-American, 67% non-Hispanic White, and 16% “Other”). “Other” included Asian, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Native American, or other ethnicity. For their participation, the students received either US$60 or Intro to Psychology research credit if enrolled in the class. The study was approved by the UAB Institutional Review Board for Human Use.

Measures

PEMS

The PEMS is a 19-item self-report questionnaire that measures how often in the past year one has consumed “tasty foods or drinks” for various reasons. Examples of “tasty foods/drinks” were provided in the general categories of fast food, homemade fried food, sweets, salty snacks, and non-alcoholic sugary drinks (Burgess et al., 2014). As previously described, the responses factor into four subscales or motives: Coping, Reward Enhancement, Social, and Conformity motives. Scores for each motive are obtained by calculating the mean of the Likert-like responses across motive items using a 1–5 point scale (1 = Never/Almost never, 5 = Always/Almost always). The measures of internal consistency have been previously reported for each of these subscales. Cronbach’s α = 0.91, 0.83, 0.87, and 0.73, respectively, indicating good internal consistency (Burgess et al., 2014). In this study, Cronbach’s α = 0.92, 0.82, 0.89, and 0.76 for Coping, Reward Enhancement, Social, and Conformity, respectively.

Emotional Eating Scale

The Emotional Eating Scale (EES) is a self-report questionnaire that assesses how frequently 25 distinct negative emotions lead one to “feel an urge to eat” with no specified time frame (Arnow et al., 1995). It yields three subscales: urges to eat triggered by feelings related to Anger/Frustration, by feelings related to Anxiety, and by feelings related to Depression. Cronbach’s α ranged from 0.72 to 0.78 on the subscales (Arnow et al., 1995), and in this study, they ranged from 0.77 to 0.89. While appearing similar, the PEMS Coping motive differs from the EES in that the Coping motive assesses how often one eats to deal with a negative mood or situation while the EES measures how often negative emotions cause one to eat.

Perceived Stress Reactivity Scale

The Perceived Stress Reactivity Scale (PSRS) is a 23-item self-report questionnaire that assesses how one generally reacts to various situations that they have experienced “in the past” (Schlotz et al., 2011). It yields five subscales or types of stressors: Reactivity to Work Overload which includes nervousness, agitation, and irritation in response to a large workload; Reactivity to Social Conflicts which involves annoyance and emotional disturbance from criticism, rejection, or a social conflict; Reactivity to Social Evaluation which entails nervousness and decreased self-confidence due to evaluation by others; Reactivity to Failure which captures annoyance, disappointment, and feeling poorly about failing at something; and Prolonged Reactivity which involves difficulty winding down from or recovering from a large workload. Previously, the PSRS subscales exhibited acceptable internal consistency with α ranging from 0.62 to 0.77 (Schlotz et al., 2011) which were similar to the α range of 0.65–0.78 in this study.

Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire

The Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire (EDE-Q) (Fairburn and Beglin, 1994) is a 28-item self-report questionnaire that measures frequency of key behavioral symptoms of eating disorders “in the past 28 days.” It yields four subscales: Restraint, Eating Concern, Shape Concern, and Weight Concern. These measure behaviors, feelings, and attitudes related to food intake and body image. Internal consistency scores were good for all EDE-Q subscales with Cronbach’s α ranging from 0.75 to 0.92 in this study, which were comparable to the α range of 0.80–0.91 obtained in a different US college population (Quick and Byrd-Bredbenner, 2013).

Binge Eating Scale

The Binge Eating Scale (BES) is a 16-item self-report questionnaire that measures psychopathological behaviors and attitudes associated with binge-eating on a continuous scale (Gormally et al., 1982).

BMI

BMI was calculated with the formula: weight in kilograms/(height in meters)². Based on their BMI, the students were classified into one of three BMI categories: healthy (18–24.9), overweight (25.0–29.9), and obese (30 and higher).

Procedures

After consenting and having their BMI measured, the students completed computer versions of all questionnaires during their first visit, except for the EDE-Q questionnaire which was completed during their second visit. Of the initial 192 undergraduates, 175 (64% female, 36% male) returned for a second visit and completed the EDE-Q.

Statistical analyses

A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) tested for main effects of age, BMI, sex, and ethnicity on the PEMS motives. Separate MANOVAs assessed differences between gender and between BMI categories with Tukey’s post hoc tests for each of the PEMS motives and the other questionnaire scores. Partial correlations controlling for age, ethnicity, BMI, and other PEMS motives determined associations between each of the PEMS motives and the other questionnaire subscale scores. Alpha was set at 0.05 for significance.

Results

Effect of demographics and BMI on PEMS motives

Sex had a main effect on Coping scores (p < 0.001) while BMI had a main effect on Coping (p < 0.01), Reward Enhancement (p < 0.01), and Social (p < 0.05) motives. Also, sex interacted with BMI for Coping (p < 0.001) and Reward Enhancement (p < 0.01) such that heavier females scored higher on these two motives (data not shown). Because of these effects and the known sex divergence in eating pathology (Hudson et al., 2007), descriptive analyses (Table 1) were conducted separately for males and females and for the different BMI categories.

Table 1.

Differences between sex and BMI categories on mean scores of the PEMS, EES, PSRS, EDE-Q, and BES for college students.

Scale	Females		Males		Healthy		Overweight		Obese
	(N = 123)		(N = 69)		(N = 82)		(N = 57)		(N = 53)
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
PEMS
Coping	2.16	1.0***	1.58	0.8	1.86	0.9^a	1.65	0.7^a	2.39	1.2^b**
Reward Enhancement	2.12	0.9	2.09	0.9	2.04	0.9	1.94	0.6^a	2.40	1.1^b*
Social	2.46	1.0	2.53	0.9	2.38	0.9	2.44	0.8	2.74	1.1
Conformity	1.57	0.7	1.56	0.6	1.49	0.5	1.56	0.6	1.69	0.7
EES
Anger/Frustration	8.62	8.3*	6.19	7.1	6.54	6.9^a	6.56	7.5^a	10.89	9.1^b**
Anxiety	8.92	6.2*	7.09	5.6	7.61	5.9^a	7.21	5.7^a	10.40	6.2^b*
Depression	8.60	4.9	7.41	4.1	7.37	4.5^a	7.51	4.1^a	10.13	5.0^b**
PSRS
Prolonged	3.42	1.9	2.97	2.1	3.30	1.8	2.67	2.0^a	3.83	2.1^b**
Work Overload	5.33	2.6**	4.22	2.4	5.15	2.5	4.47	2.6	5.09	2.7
Social Conflict	5.55	1.9***	4.32	2.0	5.13	2.0	4.49	1.8^a	5.74	2.2^b**
Failure	4.47	1.6	4.30	1.5	4.35	1.6	4.39	1.4	4.53	1.7
Social Evaluation	5.00	2.4***	3.49	2.4	4.34	2.6	3.93	1.9^a	5.21	2.7^b*
EDE-Q^c
Restraint	1.61	1.4**	1.04	1.2	1.28	1.4	1.23	1.3	1.80	1.3
Eating Concern	1.00	1.2**	0.47	0.8	0.62	1.1^a	0.56	0.8^a	1.37	1.3^b**
Shape Concern	2.72	1.8***	1.59	1.5	1.73	1.5^a	2.04	1.6^a	3.54	1.6^b***
Weight Concern	2.27	1.8***	1.17	1.3	1.27	1.4^a	1.56	1.5^a	3.18	1.6^b***
BES	11.85	8.1***	9.22	6.8	8.77	7.1^a	10.53	7.2^a	14.62	8.1^b*

BMI: body mass index; PEMS: Palatable Eating Motive Scale; EES: Emotional Eating Scale; PSRS: Perceived Stress Reactivity Scale; EDE-Q: Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire; BES: Binge Eating Scale; SD: standard deviation.

a,b

Only means with different superscripts differed from each other (* denote the most conservative p-value across significant comparisons).

The EDE-Q was completed by N = 175 of the total sample (N = 112 female, N = 63 male; N = 77 healthy, N = 50 overweight, and N = 48 obese BMI).

Female > male scores *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Sex and BMI differences in PEMS motive and other psychological subscale scores

The mean BMI for all participants was in the overweight range: 27.4, SD = 7.0 (range: 18–51.3) and did not differ between males (27.9, SD = 6.8) and females (27.0, SD = 7.1). As shown in Table 1, females generally scored higher on more questionnaire subscale scores than did males. Of the PEMS motives, Coping scores were higher for females. On the EES subscales, females reported more anger/frustration- and anxiety-triggered urges to eat than males. Females also reported greater perceived reactivity to work overload, social conflict, and social evaluation stressors compared to males. Although not an eating disorder population, the females also scored higher on all symptoms of eating pathology (EDE-Q subscales and BES) than their male counterparts, although their mean scores were below clinically significant thresholds of 4 and 27 for the EDE-Q subscales and BES, respectively.

Table 1 also shows how these measures differed among BMI categories. The PEMS

Social motive was the most frequently endorsed of the motives and did not differ across BMI groups while higher Coping and Reward Enhancement scores distinguished obese from overweight students and from healthy students. The obese students were also more frequently triggered to eat by negative emotions. Scores on reactivity to prolonged, social conflict, and social evaluation stressors across BMI groups were U-shaped with healthy and obese students reporting more reactivity than overweight students; however, only the means for the obese students were high enough to differ significantly from the overall lower means of the overweight group. Eating, shape, and weight concerns as well as binge-eating mean scores were much greater among the obese students versus the healthy and overweight students.

Associations between the PEMS motives and other psychological characteristics

Table 2 lists only statistically significant correlations. Of all the PEMS motives, Coping and Conformity were associated with more of the measured psychological characteristics than the other two motives for both males and females. Within the female group, frequency of eating tasty food for Coping motives was associated with all three of the EES subscales, with three of the five PSRS types of stress, and with eating concern, shape concern, and binge-eating severity. Reward Enhancement was associated with urges to eat triggered by anxiety and depression. Social motives to eat tasty food were only associated with anxiety-triggered eating, while Conformity motives were strongly associated with all pathological eating traits including binge-eating severity. The strongest association found in females was between Coping and depression-triggered urges to eat (r = 0.64, p < 0.001).

Table 2.

Significant partial correlation coefficients between the PEMS Coping, Reward Enhancement, Social, and Conformity motives and other eating and stress-related measures for female and male college students.^a.

	PEMS Motives
	Coping	Reward Enhancement	Social	Conformity
Females
Emotional Eating Scale^b
Anger/Frustration	0.60***	0.16	0.10	0.09
Anxiety	0.42***	0.19*	0.21*	0.12
Depression	0.62***	0.22*	0.11	−0.11
Perceived Stress Reactivity Scale
Prolonged Stress	0.24*	0.10	0.05	0.02
Social Conflict Stress	0.18*	0.02	0.04	0.06
Failure Stress	0.25**	0.00	0.01	0.18*
Eating Disorder Examination-Q
Restraint	−0.08	0.05	−0.11	0.39***
Eating Concern	0.23*	0.02	−0.18	0.46***
Shape Concern	0.21*	−0.05	−0.12	0.35***
Weight Concern	0.19*	−0.14	−0.09	0.38***
Binge Eating Scale	0.25**	0.13	0.03	0.26**
Males
Emotional Eating Scale^b
Anger/Frustration	0.44***	0.25^c	−0.18	0.35**
Anxiety	0.30*	0.21	0.04	0.35**
Depression	0.43**	0.23	0.12	0.16
Perceived Stress Reactivity Scale
Failure Stress	0.04	0.11	−0.32*	0.21
Eating Disorder Examination-Q
Eating Concern	0.44**	0.20	−0.06	0.17
Binge Eating Scale	0.20	0.20	−0.27*	0.52***

PEMS: Palatable Eating Motive Scale; BMI: body mass index; EES: Emotional Eating Scale.

Controlling for age, ethnicity, BMI, and the other PEMS motives. Only subscales with scores significantly correlated with one or more PEMS motives are shown. Table 1 lists all the subscales.

Partial correlations between the EES subscales and PEMS motives also controlled for binge-eating (BES scores) because of the high correlations between EES subscales and binge-eating (Arnow et al., 1995).

Marginally significant (p < 0.055).

p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Within the male group, eating tasty food for Coping motives was also associated with all three EES subscales and with one eating pathology trait: eating concern. In comparison, the Conformity motive was only correlated with the anxiety and anger/frustration EES subscales and with higher binge-eating scores, which was the strongest correlation (r = 0.52, p < 0.001) of the psychological characteristics measured for males. The Social motive was related to decreased reactivity to failure-based stress reactivity and to decreased binge-eating severity. Finally, none of these associations for either sex could be explained by differences in age, ethnic group, BMI, or scores on other PEMS motives since they were statistically controlled. Additionally, associations between PEMS motives and EES subscales could not be explained by binge-eating severity since BES scores were controlled in these analyses as well.

Discussion

This study was aimed at learning more about the psychological characteristics of individuals that endorse particular motives for consuming tasty foods and drinks as measured by the PEMS. By examining possible correlates related to emotional-eating, stress, and eating pathology, the results revealed a high degree of distinction between the PEMS motives based on the associated psychological characteristics.

Characteristics linked to eating palatable foods more often for Coping were being female; having a greater BMI; being triggered to eat by feelings related to anger/frustration, anxiety, and depression; and having greater eating concern. In addition, females who ate to Cope were distinguishable from males who ate to Cope in that this motive was also accompanied by greater perceived reactivity to prolonged, social conflict, and personal failure stressors; by greater shape and weight concerns; and by greater binge-eating severity. On the other hand, the association between Coping and the Eating Concern subscale was stronger for males than for females, a difference that cannot be explained by BMI as the mean BMI did not significantly differ between sexes. Although the mean eating pathology traits as measured by the EDE-Q and BES did not meet clinically significant thresholds, Eating Concern scores in both sexes were greater for those who scored higher in Coping despite a lack of significant association with dietary Restraint subscale scores. This association between Coping and Eating Concern suggests a possible vicious cycle for those who eat to cope because the more frequently they eat to deal with negative moods, worries, and problems, the greater their concern over their eating behavior. Yet this concern alone does not appear to be able to change their eating behavior.

In general, our hypothesis that Coping would be more characterized by the eating disorder symptoms and urges to eat from negative emotions was borne out except for the strong link between eating concern and Coping in males. By contrast, our hypothesis was not supported by the results for the Reward Enhancement motive. We expected the profile of associations for Reward Enhancement to almost mirror that of Coping because, like the Coping motive, Reward Enhancement is an internally driven motive for consuming palatable foods. However, its associations with other eating and stress characteristics were very different from those of Coping. Reward Enhancement was characterized by greater BMI, but frequency of eating for this motive did not differ between males and females as it did for Coping. Interestingly, Reward Enhancement was also characterized by urges to eat triggered by anxiety and depression in females but not in males. By contrast, it was marginally associated with anger/frustration urges to eat in males. Unlike Coping, Reward Enhancement was not associated with any of the stress or symptoms of eating pathology measured for either sex. However, the association with binge-eating severity was significant when both males and females were combined, possibly due to the increased number in the analysis. This association between Reward Enhancement and binge-eating severity as measured by the BES replicates a prior finding in a different sample of college students (Boggiano et al., 2014). It also mirrors alcohol research in that the rewarding properties of alcohol along with the coping motive predict future binge-drinking, alcoholism, and alcohol-related problems (King et al., 2011; Piasecki et al., 2014).

While eating palatable food for Social motives was not significantly different between sexes or between BMI categories, it was characterized by urges to eat triggered by anxiety in females and by reduced reactivity to failure stress in males. None of the eating pathology traits was associated with high Social motive scores except with decreased binge-eating severity in males. This negative correlation is consistent with the binge-eating disorder (BED) criterion of eating in secrecy (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) as social eating would be the polar opposite. Taken together, these results supported our hypothesis and strengthen the reliability of previous findings to indicate that the Social items of the PEMS are measuring normal, psychologically healthy behavior as they neither predict obesity nor binge-eating in adults (Boggiano et al., 2014, 2015a; Burgess et al., 2014). Social reasons for eating tasty foods and drinks are an expected cultural norm, especially among young adults. In this study, the only correlation of consequence with the Social motive was found in females and it was with increased urges to eat when experiencing anxiety. The EES Anxiety subscale comprises emotions such as excitement, being on edge, feeling jittery, shaky, and nervous (Arnow et al., 1995), all emotions that are not necessarily negative and might be expected in social settings when trying to make a good impression. Unlike the case for depression- and anger/frustration-triggered urges to eat, anxiety-triggered urges were not found to be linked either to disinhibited eating (Arnow et al., 1995) or to weight gain in obese individuals with binge-eating (Eldredge et al., 1994). Similarly, drinking alcohol for social motives is not linked to problematic outcomes (Cooper, 1994). Nonetheless, Social motives to eat tasty foods may become a problem if it is done frequently enough to contribute to overweight or an unhealthy diet over time.

Perhaps the most surprising results of the study concerned the characteristics associated with the Conformity motive. Eating for Conformity, like the Social motive, is also an externally driven motive to eat tasty food because it is influenced by others. However, unlike eating for Social reasons, eating palatable food for Conformity reasons was found to be associated with more problematic characteristics. While neither sex- nor BMI-divergent, the Conformity motive in females was characterized by perceived reactivity not only to failure stress as hypothesized but also to all five measured eating pathologies: Restraint, Eating Concern, Shape Concern, Weight Concern, and binge-eating severity. Conformity is a feature of perfectionism, a known personality trait in the eating disorders, especially in anorexia and bulimia nervosa (Cassin and Von Ranson, 2005; Pliner and Haddock, 1996), which could also explain this motive’s correlation with greater perceived reactivity to failure stress. However, it was surprising that simply eating to fit in, not to be made fun of, and because others want one to eat the tasty foods (the Conformity items) were positively associated with pathological eating behaviors and cognitions in this non-clinical population. While the mean EDE-Q subscale scores did not meet clinical threshold levels, these findings suggest that a high score on the PEMS Conformity motive may serve as an early predictor of problematic eating and possibly an eating disorder. Interestingly, in alcohol drinking research, Conformity motives are negatively related to the quantity and frequency of drinking alcohol but are positively related to drinking problems (Cooper, 1994), which mirrors the relation of eating for Conformity motives and the increased endorsement of the EDE-Q’s eating pathology symptoms.

Among the eating pathology traits measured in males, the Conformity motive was characterized by binge-eating severity and it was the highest correlation found for males. Unlike in females, there was no association between Conformity and the other eating pathologies (Restraint, Eating, Shape, or Weight Concerns). However, urges to eat triggered by anger/frustration and by anxiety were also characteristic of the Conformity motive for males. Taken together, men who primarily eat palatable foods out of Conformity (to please and appease others) may be conformists by nature. Their susceptibility to be triggered to eat by feelings of anger, frustration, and anxiety may mean that they eat in order to deal with these threatening emotions rather than expressing or sharing these feelings, a behavior antithetical to conforming. The positive link between eating for Conformity and increased binge-eating severity would only add to their sense of inability to control themselves, much less others. Indeed, low self-efficacy, low self-esteem, perfectionism, and internalizing psychopathology have been found to characterize men with BED (Linde et al., 2004; Mitchell et al., 2014) or with binge-eating symptoms (Minnich et al., 2014). To our knowledge, this is the first time that Conformity as a motive to eat, and perhaps as a more general personality trait, has been associated with binge-eating severity in men. However, because the mean male BES score of 9.22 was in the middle of the mild or no binge-eating classification (⩽17), this link merits further investigation especially given the dearth of research in males with BED (Jones and Morgan, 2010).

In addition to the association of binge-eating severity with Conformity and Coping in both sexes, the observation that different types of emotional-eating, different kinds of perceived stress-reactivity, and absence or presence of a caloric restraint association for the two motives may indicate different subtypes of binge-eating risk. This can be most easily observed in Table 2; in females, the characteristics that are significantly associated between “Coping binge-eating” versus “Conformity binge-eating” are clearly different.

A secondary outcome of this study is increased validity for the PEMS in that the motives both converged with and discriminated from other measures of eating and stress, especially given that we controlled for BMI and binge-eating severity, factors known to underlie some of these measured traits. The results support the use of the PEMS to obtain incremental information relevant to eating and stress behaviors in both clinical and non-clinical populations. Further validation is provided by replication of previously reported associations between Coping and greater BMI (Boggiano et al., 2014, 2015a; Burgess et al., 2014; Verhoeven et al., 2015). This study also replicates the association between Reward Enhancement and binge-eating severity in college students (Boggiano et al., 2014). Now that PEMS scores have been ecologically validated (Boggiano et al., 2015b), longitudinal studies are needed to determine which of the characteristics identified are able to predict the development of motive-based patterns of eating palatable food and which develop as a result of these motive-based patterns. Generalization of the present findings is also limited to young adults so it will be of interest to determine whether the same psychological characteristics for the various motives are found in adolescent and older community populations.

Conclusion

The results of this study provide further validity for the PEMS. More importantly, the results offer additional psychological characteristics or symptoms (in the case of eating pathology) that are associated with each motive type. These may be serving to maintain the motive type and may be early predictors of eating disorders or obesity. A surprising result of the study is a picture of possible subtypes of binge-eating as different characteristics were associated with different eating motives for females and males. Even in this non-eating disordered population, the traits found to characterize the different PEMS motives can be targeted for more personally tailored interventions to prevent development of binge-eating and obesity or to promote healthier food choices and sounder eating habits. Targeting these traits may also lead to improved psychosocial and emotional well-being by finding alternate ways of coping, enhancing reward, relating to others, and gaining acceptance of others that do not involve food.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a UAB Faculty Development Program Grant to MMB.

References

American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) (5th ed). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Arnow

Kenardy

Agras

(1995) The Emotional Eating Scale: The development of a measure to assess coping with negative affect by eating. International Journal of Eating Disorders 18: 79–90.

Astrup

Brand-Miller

(2012) Diet composition and obesity. The Lancet 379: 1100.

Boggiano

Burgess

Turan

. (2014) Motives for eating tasty foods associated with binge-eating: Results from a student and a weight-loss seeking population. Appetite 83: 160–166.

Boggiano

Wenger

Turan

. (2015a) Eating tasty food to cope: Longitudinal association with BMI. Appetite 87: 365–370.

Boggiano

Wenger

Turan

. (2015b) Real-time sampling of reasons for hedonic food consumption: Further validation of the Palatable Eating Motives Scale. Frontiers in Psychology: Eating Behavior 6: 744. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00744.

Burgess

Turan

Lokken

. (2014) Profiling motives behind hedonic eating: Preliminary validation of the Palatable Eating Motives Scale. Appetite 72: 66–72.

Cassin

Von Ranson

(2005) Personality and eating disorders: A decade in review. Clinical Psychology Review 25: 895–916.

Cooper

(1994) Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: Development and validation of a four factor model. Psychological Assessment 6: 117–128.

10.

Eldredge

Agras

Arnow

(1994) The last supper: Emotional determinants of pretreatment weight fluctuation in obese binge eaters. International Journal of Eating Disorders 16: 83–88.

11.

Fairburn

Beglin

(1994) Assessment of eating disorders: Interview or self-report questionnaire? International Journal of Eating Disorders 16: 363–370.

12.

Gormally

Black

Daston

. (1982) The assessment of binge eating severity among obese persons. Addictive Behaviors 7: 47–55.

13.

Hudson

Hiripi

Pope

Jr . (2007) The prevalence and correlates of eating disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Biological Psychiatry 61: 348–358.

14.

Jones

Morgan

(2010) Eating disorders in men: A review of the literature. Journal of Public Mental Health 9: 23–31.

15.

Kales

(1990) Macronutrient analysis of binge eating in bulimia. Physiology & Behavior 48: 837–840.

16.

King

de Wit

McNamara

. (2011) Rewarding stimulant and sedative alcohol responses and relationship to future binge drinking. Archives of General Psychiatry 68: 389–399.

17.

Linde

Jeffery

Levy

. (2004) Binge eating disorder weight control self-efficacy and depression in overweight men and women. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders 28: 418–425.

18.

Minnich

Gordon

Holm-Denoma

. (2014) A test of an interactive model of binge eating among undergraduate men. Eating Behaviors 15: 625–631.

19.

Mitchell

Wolf

Reardon

. (2014) Association of eating disorder symptoms with internalizing and externalizing dimensions of psychopathology among men and women. International Journal of Eating Disorders 47: 860–869.

20.

Nikolaou

Hankey

Lean

(2014) Weight changes in young adults: A mixed-methods study. International Journal of Obesity 22: 2277–2283.

21.

Piasecki

Cooper

Wood

. (2014) Dispositional drinking motives: Associations with appraised alcohol effects and alcohol consumption in an ecological momentary assessment investigation. Psychological Assessment 26: 363–369.

22.

Pliner

Haddock

(1996) Perfectionism in weight-concerned and -unconcerned women: An experimental approach. International Journal of Eating Disorders 19: 381–389.

23.

Quick

Byrd-Bredbenner

(2013) Eating Disorders Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q): Norms for US college students. Eating and Weight Disorders 18: 29–35.

24.

Schlotz

Yim

Zoccola

. (2011) The Perceived Stress Reactivity Scale: Measurement invariance stability and validity in three countries. Psychological Assessment 23: 80–94.

25.

Verhoeven

Adriaanse

de Vet

. (2015) It’s my party and I eat if I want to: Reasons for unhealthy snacking. Appetite 84: 20–27.

26.

Zizza

Siega-Riz

Popkin

(2001) Significant increase in young adults’ snacking between 1977–1978 and 1994–1996 represents a cause for concern! Preventive Medicine 32: 303–310.