# Impulsivity and consideration of future consequences as moderators of the association between emotional eating and body weight status

Marc Bénard, France Bellisle, Fabrice Etilé, Gérard Reach, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Serge Hercberg, Sandrine Peneau

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## ► To cite this version:

Marc Bénard, France Bellisle, Fabrice Etilé, Gérard Reach, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, et al.. Impulsivity and consideration of future consequences as moderators of the association between emotional eating and body weight status. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2018, 15 (1), 10.1186/s12966-018-0721-1. hal-01870196

HAL Id: hal-01870196

https://hal.science/hal-01870196

Submitted on 26 May 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
RESEARCH

Open Access

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

CrossMark

# Impulsivity and consideration of future consequences as moderators of the association between emotional eating and body weight status

Marc Bénard<fnref n="1" />*, France Bellisle<fnref n="1" />, Fabrice Etilé², Gérard Reach³, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot<fnref n="1" />, Serge Hercberg<fnref n="1" />,⁴
and Sandrine Péneau<fnref n="1" />

## Abstract

**Background:** Emotional eating (EmE) is characterized by an over consumption of food in response to negative emotions and is associated with an increased weight status. Consideration of Future Consequences (CFC) or a low level of impulsivity could influence the association between EmE and weight status. The objective was to analyze the moderating influence of CFC and impulsivity on the relationship between EmE and BMI.

**Methods:** A total of 9974 men and 39,797 women from the NutriNet-Santé cohort study completed the revised 21-item Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire to assess their EmE, the CFC questionnaire (CFC-12) to assess their level of time perspective, and the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11) to assess their impulsivity. Weight and height were self-reported each year over a median follow-up of 5.3 years. The associations between EmE and repeated measures of BMI were estimated by multiple linear mixed-effects regression models stratified by gender, tertiles of the CFC, or tertiles of the BIS-11, taking into account sociodemographic and lifestyle factors.

**Results:** Overall, EmE was positively associated with BMI. CFC and impulsivity did not moderate the effect of EmE on changes of BMI per year, but quantitatively moderated the effect of EmE on overall BMI. In women, the strength of the association between EmE and weight status increased with CFC level. Difference of BMI slopes between a low and a high level of CFC was -0.43 kg/m² (95% CI: -0.55, -0.30) (*p* < .0001). In addition, the strength of the association between emotional eating and weight status increased with impulsivity level. Difference of BMI slopes between a low and a high level of impulsivity was +0.37 kg/m² (95% CI: 0.24, 0.51) (*p* < .0001). In men, only individuals with a low CFC presented a stronger association of EmE with BMI.

**Conclusions:** Impulsivity and consideration of future consequences moderated the association between emotional eating and body weight status. This study emphasizes the importance of taking into account psychological traits in obesity prevention.

**Keywords:** Emotional eating, Nutritional status, Consideration of future consequences, Impulsivity, Psychology

<footnote>* Correspondence: m.benard@eren.smbh.univ-paris13.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹Équipe de Recherche en Epidémiologie Nutritionnelle, Centre de Recherche en Epidémiologie et Statistique Sorbonne Paris Cité, INSERM U1153, INRA U1125, Cnam, Université Paris 13, Bobigny, France
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article</footnote>
## Background

Obesity represents one of the leading public health issues in many countries [1]. Behavioral traits, and in particular psychological traits, have been shown to influence food choices and BMI [2, 3]. More specifically, emotional eating (EmE), which is defined as eating in response to negative emotions was found to be positively associated with the intake of specific food groups such as high-fat and energy-dense snack foods [4–8] or sweet and fatty foods, although no association appeared with total energy or macronutrients [5, 9, 10]. Positive association of EmE with eating disorders has also been reported [11–15]. EmE has been repeatedly found to be associated with weight status [16–18], BMI [7, 19–22], and also with weight gain over a 2-year [23] and a 20-year [22, 24] follow-up periods. In addition, gender appeared to modify the relationship between EmE and weight status [21], and women generally report greater scores of EmE [5, 10, 21]. Finally, EmE appeared to fully mediate the relationship between personality factors such as neuroticism, low self-esteem and fear of intimacy, and weight loss following bariatric surgery and weight-loss program [25].

Some psychological constructs could be involved in the relationship between EmE and dietary habits or weight status by modulating the response to the urge to eat following negative emotions. Such could be the case of consideration of future consequences (CFC) and impulsivity which are important constructs relative to eating behavior and weight status. CFC corresponds to “the extent to which individuals consider the potential distant outcomes of their current behaviors and the extent by which they are influenced by these potential outcomes” [26]. Individuals with a high CFC are expected to adopt a future oriented behavior where long-term concerns are favored over immediate needs. In particular, individuals with a high CFC have been shown to exercise more [27–29], to be more sensitive to health communication [30], to have healthier eating attitudes and intentions [28], and lower BMI [31, 32]. Concern about the consequences of one's behaviors could therefore influence responses to negative emotions. We therefore hypothesize that CFC could modify the association between EmE and weight status.

Impulsivity is a personality trait corresponding to “a predisposition toward rapid, unplanned reactions to internal or external stimuli without regard to the negative consequences of these reactions to the impulsive individual or to others” [33]. Impulsivity can be regarded as a consequence of impaired executive functioning [34]. Failures of the inhibitory processes lead to impulsive traits where urges to perform a specific act in response to a stimulus are not inhibited [34]. In the literature,

impulsivity has been found associated with overeating [35–37], eating disorders [38–44], and weight status [3, 35, 45–49]. A low level of impulsivity and thus stronger inhibitory processes could provide the ability to inhibit and reduce urges to overeating in responses to negative emotions or regulate one's dietary behavior regarding these impulses.

CFC has been shown to be inversely associated with impulsivity [32, 33] and both constructs are linked with measures of self-control [50–52]. However, CFC relies on intertemporal dilemmas and choices of one's behavior [26], which could be seen as a proactive mechanism; whereas impulsivity would typically measure spontaneous responses and acts without forethought, which would involve less intervening cognitive and affective mechanisms [34].

The objective of this study was to assess how CFC and impulsivity moderate the relationship between EmE and repeated measures of BMI in a sample of the general population participating in the NutriNet-Santé cohort study, by taking into account sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics.

## Methods

### Population

This study was conducted as part of the NutriNet-Santé study, which is a large ongoing web-based prospective cohort started in France in May 2009. The rationale, design and methods of the study have been described elsewhere [53]. Its overall aim is to explore the relationships between nutrition and health, and the determinants of eating behavior and nutritional status. Participants are adult volunteers (age ≥ 18 years) of the general French population with a scheduled follow-up of at least 10 years. At inclusion, participants have to complete several self-reported web-based questionnaires to assess their diet, their physical activity, anthropometric measures, lifestyle characteristics, socioeconomic conditions and health status. Participants complete this set of questionnaires every year after inclusion. Finally, another set of optional questionnaires related to determinants of eating behaviors, nutritional status, and specific aspects related to health are sent to every participant each month.

This study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and all procedures were approved by the International Research Board of the French Institute for Health and Medical Research (IRB Inserm n° 0000388FWA00005831) and the Commission Nationale Informatique et Libertés (CNIL n° 908,450 and n° 909,216). Electronic informed consent was obtained from all participants. The study was registered at [clinicaltrials.org](https://www.clinicaltrials.org) (Clinical Trial no. NCT03335644).
## Data collection

### Emotional eating

Participants completed the French version of the revised 21-item Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ-R21) [54] 14 months after their inclusion (July 2010–January 2011 for most participants) and the completion of this questionnaire was optional. The questionnaire covers the following 3 aspects of eating behavior: cognitive restraint (6 items), emotional eating (6 items), and uncontrolled eating (9 items). The present analysis focused on the EmE scale that measures the propensity or need to overeat in response to negative feelings. EmE items are measured by using 4-point scales that ranged from “definitely true” (1 point) to “definitely false” (4 points). An example of the items of the EmE scale is as follows: *I start to eat when I feel anxious*. EmE score is calculated as a mean of all items within this dimension, so that the score ranges from 1 to 4. A score of 1 indicates an absence EmE, whereas a score of 4 indicates a high tendency to eat following negative emotions. Cronbach's α = 0.93.

### Consideration of future consequences

Consideration of Future Consequences was assessed with the French version of the CFC-12 questionnaire [55] completed from June to November 2014. The mean time interval from the administration of the TFEQ-R21 was 2.6 years (SD = 1.4). The CFC-12 is a 12-item self-report questionnaire [26] developed to measure the extent to which individuals consider distant versus immediate consequences of their behavior. Each item is measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “extremely uncharacteristic” (1 point) to “extremely characteristic” (5 points). Examples of the items composing the CFC-12 are as follow: “I consider how things might be in the future, and try to influence those things with my day to day behavior” or “I only act to satisfy immediate concerns, figuring the future will take care of itself”. The total score is obtained by summing each item ratings leading to a possible range from 12 to 60 (higher scores indicating greater consideration of future consequences). A good internal consistency was obtained in our sample with a Cronbach's α of 0.79. Participants were split into 3 categories determined by gender-specific tertiles of the total score: T1 (total score < 37 (women), < 38 (men)), T2 (37–44 (women), 38–44 (men)), and T3 (> 44 (women and men)).

### Impulsivity

Impulsivity was assessed with the French version of the BIS-11 questionnaire [56] (derived from the French version of the BIS-10 questionnaire). The mean delay with the administration of the TFEQ-R21

was 2.6 years (SD = 1.4). The BIS-11 [57] is one of the most often used self-report questionnaire to assess impulsivity. It is a 30-item self-report questionnaire developed to assess the personality construct of impulsivity. Each item is measured on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “rarely/never” (1 point) to “almost always/always” (4 points). Examples of the items composing the BIS-11 are as follow: “I plan tasks carefully” or “I do things without thinking”. The total score is obtained by summing all the item ratings, offering a possible range from 30 to 120, with higher scores indicating greater impulsivity. In our population, the BIS-11 displayed good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.78). Participants were split into 3 categories determined by gender-specific tertiles of the total score: T1 (total score < 55 (women) and < 54 (men)), T2 (55–62 (women), 54–61 (men) and T3 (> 62 (women), > 61 (men)).

### Anthropometric measures

Self-reported height and weight data were collected each year using a web-based questionnaire. Repeated measures of BMI (kg/m²) were calculated as the ratio of weight to squared height. BMI data from the completion of the TFEQ-R21 (baseline BMI) to the last available data in the NutriNet-Santé cohort were used, representing up to 8 follow-up points per participant, covering a 7-year period. BMI change per year (kg.m⁻².y⁻¹) was calculated as BMI at the end of the follow-up minus baseline BMI divided by the duration of the follow-up.

### Socio-demographic and lifestyle data

Potential confounders of the relationship between EmE and BMI were collected based on closest data to the date of completion of the TFEQ-R21: age (years), gender, education level (primary, secondary, undergraduate, and postgraduate), occupational status (unemployed, student, self-employed and farmer, employee and manual worker, intermediate profession, managerial staff and intellectual profession, and retired), monthly income, smoking status (never smokers and smokers), level of physical activity, and history of dieting (never dieters and dieters). More precisely, monthly income was calculated from information about income and composition of household. Members of a household were attributed different weights according to the OECD-modified equivalence scale: 1 for the first adult in the household, 0.5 for other persons aged 14 or older and 0.3 for children under 14 [58]. Total household income is then divided by the sum of the weights to yield a representative income. Categories of income were defined as follows: < 1200; 1200-1799; 1800-2299; 2300-2699; 2700-3699; and ≥ 3700 euros as well as “unwilling to answer”. Physical activity was assessed using a short form of the French version of the
International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) [59]. Weekly energy expenditure expressed in Metabolic Equivalent of Task (MET-minutes/week) was estimated and three levels of physical activity were constituted (low (< 30 min/day), moderate (30-60 min/day), and high (≥ 60 min/day)).

## Statistical analysis

A total of 51,394 participants (41%) of the NutriNet-Santé cohort study completed the CFC-12 and the BIS-11 questionnaires from the 125,377 subjects who received them. Among these participants 5399 did not complete the revised TFEQ-R21 questionnaire. From the 45,995 individuals left, 3002 women were excluded because they were pregnant at least once during the study, 461 individuals because of missing data on weight and height, 373 participants because they presented an acquiescence bias (agreeing to all questions without consideration of reversed items), and 2388 participants because they completed the TFEQ-R21 questionnaire after the CFC-12 and the BIS-11 questionnaires, leaving 39,771 participants in the final sample. Compared to excluded participants, the 39,771 participants in the final analysis were older (49.9 ± 13.7 years for included participants vs 41.8 ± 14.4 years for excluded participants, *p* < .0001), more often men (25.1% vs. 21.3%, *p* < .0001), and had a higher frequency of university education (33.2% vs. 30.7%, *p* < .0001).

The characteristics of the sample were compared by gender with Student's t tests for continuous variables, and with Pearson's chi-square tests for categorical variables. Since the distribution of the EmE score was not normal, analyses of differences in EmE were based on Wilcoxon two-sample and Kruskal-Wallis tests when appropriate. Longitudinal analyses of the association between EmE and repeated measures of BMI were performed with multiple linear mixed-effect regression models which were estimated with the maximum likelihood method. These models can deal with missing values on BMI (assumed to be missing at random) since they use all of the available data from an individual. First-order interaction test between EmE and gender was significant (*p* < .0001) and further analyses were stratified by gender. Second-order interactions were explored between EmE, time (as a continuous variable representing the delay between baseline BMI and follow-up points), and tertiles of CFC-12/BIS-11 to assess differences of BMI changes according to CFC/impulsivity levels. These interactions tests were all non-significant (CFC-12, men: *p* = .23/ CFC-12, women: *p* = .78/ BIS-11, men: *p* = .18/ BIS-11, women: *p* = .10). Therefore, interaction tests between EmE and tertiles of CFC-12/BIS-11 were carried out to look for the modification effect of these scales on BMI. These tests were all

significant except for the test between EmE and tertiles of BIS-11 among men (CFC-12, men: *p* = .009/ CFC-12, women: *p* = <.0001/ BIS-11, men: *p* = .16/ BIS-11, women: *p* = <.0001). Final mixed models were accordingly stratified by gender and tertiles of the CFC-12 and tertiles of the BIS-11 and adjusted for time, age, education level, occupational status, monthly income per household unit, smoking status, physical activity, and history of dieting as fixed effects. The covariance structure of each model was selected according to the Akaike information criterion and the Bayesian information criterion. Intercept and time were included as random variables with a different variance component for each random effect among men models and a correlated random coefficient model (unstructured G matrix) among women. In addition, a spatial power law covariance structure of the R matrix was used to take into account unequally spaced longitudinal measurements in all models. Effect sizes were calculated by *β* and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Missing data on confounders were handled with multiple imputation by fully conditional specification (20 imputed datasets). All tests of statistical significance were 2-sided and significance was set at 5%. A Holm-Bonferroni procedure (step-down adjustment) was applied to correct for multiple testing. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS software (SAS Institute Inc., version 9.4).

## Results

### Description of the population

Table 1 shows characteristics of the sample according to gender. Compared with men, women were younger, fewer had a primary or secondary level of education, were less often retired, had a lower monthly household income, had a higher frequency of smoking, lower physical activity, and dieting, had a lower BMI at baseline (but a higher BMI change per year over the period of follow-up), and were less often overweight. In addition they had a lower level of CFC, a higher level of impulsivity, and a higher EmE score.

### Relationship between EmE, CFC and impulsivity

Table 2 presents means of EmE according to levels of CFC and impulsivity by gender. Women with a high level of CFC had a lower score of EmE, although differences were relatively small. No significant differences were found for men. Women and men with a high level of impulsivity had a higher score of EmE. CFC and EmE were significantly correlated in our study (*r* = −0.04, *p* < .0001 in women and *r* = −0.02, *p* = .04 in men). Impulsivity and EmE were also significantly correlated (*r* = 0.16, *p* < .0001 in women and *r* = 0.17, *p* < .0001 in men). Overall, CFC was negatively
<table><caption>**Table 1** Characteristics of 39,771 participants according to gender (NutriNet-Santé study, 2014)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>All (n = 39,771)</th><th>Women (n = 29,797)</th><th>Men (n = 9974)</th><th>P<sup>1</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Age (years)<sup>2</sup></td><td>49.9 ± 13.7</td><td>48.5 ± 13.5</td><td>54.1 ± 13.6</td><td>&lt;.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Education level (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Primary</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.7</td><td>3.3</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Secondary</td><td>32.8</td><td>32.4</td><td>34.3</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Some college</td><td>30.9</td><td>33.2</td><td>24.0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>University</td><td>33.2</td><td>31.5</td><td>38.2</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Missing data</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.2</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Occupational status (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployed</td><td>10.0</td><td>11.9</td><td>4.5</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Student</td><td>3.5</td><td>4.1</td><td>1.5</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Self-employed, farmer</td><td>1.7</td><td>1.6</td><td>2.0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Employee, manual worker</td><td>16.0</td><td>18.5</td><td>8.5</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Intermediate professions</td><td>16.5</td><td>18.1</td><td>11.7</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Managerial staff, intellectual profession</td><td>22.1</td><td>20.6</td><td>26.7</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Retired</td><td>30.1</td><td>25.1</td><td>45.1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Monthly household income (%)<sup>3</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;.0001</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 1200€</td><td>13.3</td><td>14.6</td><td>9.3</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1200-1799€</td><td>23.1</td><td>23.7</td><td>21.4</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1800-2299€</td><td>15.3</td><td>15.4</td><td>14.7</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2300-2699€</td><td>9.5</td><td>8.7</td><td>11.8</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2700-3699€</td><td>16.5</td><td>15.3</td><td>20.0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>≥ 3700€</td><td>11.1</td><td>9.6</td><td>15.6</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Unwilling to answer</td><td>10.3</td><td>11.4</td><td>6.8</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Missing data</td><td>1.0</td><td>1.2</td><td>0.4</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Smoking status (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Never smokers</td><td>48.7</td><td>51.6</td><td>40.0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Smokers</td><td>51.3</td><td>48.4</td><td>60.0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Physical activity (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Low</td><td>21.6</td><td>22.3</td><td>19.4</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Moderate</td><td>40.5</td><td>42.1</td><td>35.6</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>High</td><td>34.4</td><td>31.9</td><td>42.0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Missing data</td><td>3.5</td><td>3.7</td><td>3.0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>History of dieting (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Never dieters</td><td>60.8</td><td>57.7</td><td>70.3</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Dieters</td><td>39.2</td><td>42.3</td><td>29.7</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Baseline BMI (kg/m<sup>2</sup>)<sup>2</sup></td><td>24.0 ± 4.5</td><td>23.6 ± 4.6</td><td>25.1 ± 3.8</td><td>&lt;.0001</td></tr><tr><td>BMI change/year (kg.m<sup>-2</sup>.y<sup>-1</sup>)<sup>2,4</sup></td><td>0.04 ± 0.48</td><td>0.05 ± 0.51</td><td>0.02 ± 0.36</td><td>&lt;.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Period of follow-up (years)<sup>4,5</sup></td><td>5.27 (4.00-6.93)</td><td>5.19 (3.97-6.91)</td><td>5.96 (4.00-6.94)</td><td>&lt;.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Baseline Weight status (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Underweight (&lt; 18.5 kg/m<sup>2</sup>)</td><td>4.7</td><td>5.9</td><td>1.1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Normal (≥ 18.5 and &lt; 25 kg/m<sup>2</sup>)</td><td>63.4</td><td>66.4</td><td>54.1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Overweight (≥ 25 and &lt; 30 kg/m<sup>2</sup>)</td><td>22.9</td><td>18.6</td><td>35.5</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Obese (≥ 30 kg/m<sup>2</sup>)</td><td>8.9</td><td>8.8</td><td>9.3</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Missing data</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.0</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 1** Characteristics of 39,771 participants according to gender (NutriNet-Santé study, 2014) (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>All (n = 39,771)</th><th>Women (n = 29,797)</th><th>Men (n = 9974)</th><th>P<sup>1</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CFC (CFC-12) (range: 12–60)<sup>2</sup></td><td>40.4 ± 7.0</td><td>40.2 ± 7.0</td><td>40.8 ± 6.9</td><td>&lt;.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Impulsivity (BIS-11) (range: 30–120)<sup>2</sup></td><td>58.6 ± 8.0</td><td>58.9 ± 7.9</td><td>57.4 ± 8.0</td><td>&lt;.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional eating score (range: 1–4)<sup>5</sup></td><td>2.00 (1.33–2.83)</td><td>2.17 (1.67–2.83)</td><td>1.67 (1.00–2.17)</td><td>&lt;.0001</td></tr></tbody></table>

CFC-12 Consideration of Future Consequences scale, high CFC scores indicate a high level of future orientation

BIS-11 Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (11th version), high BIS-11 scores indicate a high level of impulsivity

¹p-value based on t tests for continuous variables or chi-square tests for categorical variables (corrected for multiple testing with a Holm-Bonferroni procedure)

²Mean ± SD

³Members of a household received different weights according to the OECD-modified equivalence scale: 1 for the first adult in the household, 0.5 for other persons aged 14 or older and 0.3 for children under 14 [58]. Total household income is then divided by the sum of the weights s to yield a representative income

⁴Based on the 38,665 participants with at least two measures of BMI

⁵Median (Interquartile range), adjusted p-value based on Wilcoxon two-sample test

associated with impulsivity ($r = -0.40$ in women, $p < .0001$ and $r = -0.43$, $p = <.0001$ in men).

## Association between EmE and repeated measures of BMI according to gender, CFC levels, and impulsivity levels

Tables 3 and 4 show the associations between EmE and repeated measures of BMI according to gender, as well as CFC and impulsivity. EmE was significantly associated with BMI in every tertiles of CFC or impulsivity, and in both men and women. Associations were stronger in women than in men. Even though CFC and impulsivity did not moderate the effect of EmE on change of BMI (non-significant second-order interaction tests), these constructs moderated the effect of EmE on BMI. The association between EmE and BMI was stronger for participants with a low level of CFC (Tertile 1) compared with participants with an average level of CFC (Tertile 2) and with a high level of CFC (Tertile 3) in both women and men. Tertile 2 and Tertile 3 were also different in women, whereas no difference was found in men (see Additional files 1 and 2). In addition, the association between EmE and BMI was stronger for women with a high level of impulsivity (Tertile 3) compared to women with an average level of impulsivity (Tertile 2) and a low level of impulsivity (Tertile 1) (see Additional file 3). No

difference was found between Tertile 1 and Tertile 2. Impulsivity did not moderate the association between EmE and BMI among men.

## Discussion

As previously observed in the literature, EmE was positively associated with BMI in men and women, with the latter showing a stronger relationship. CFC and impulsivity quantitatively moderated the association between EmE and BMI, but did not influence the association between EmE and BMI change. The association between EmE and BMI was stronger in women and men with a low future orientation, and in women with a high level of impulsivity.

## Characteristics of emotional eaters according to CFC and impulsivity

Although less future oriented women (corresponding to a lower CFC) had a higher EmE score, this association was marginal and no association was observed in men. These data suggest that concerns with future consequences is not correlated with EmE, even though data in the literature indicate that higher level of CFC was associated with healthier behavior such as healthy eating, more exercise, and smoking cessation [60]. As shown by

<table><caption>**Table 2** Consideration of future consequences (CFC), impulsivity, and emotional eating scores in 39,771 participants (NutriNet-Santé study, 2014)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">GENDER</th><th rowspan="2">CFC</th><th colspan="2">Emotional eating score</th><th rowspan="2">Impulsivity</th><th colspan="2">Emotional eating score</th></tr><tr><th>Median (Interquartile range)</th><th>P<sup>1</sup></th><th>Median (Interquartile range)</th><th>P<sup>1</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">WOMEN</td><td>CFC Tertile 1</td><td>2.33 (1.67–3.00)</td><td rowspan="3">&lt;.0001</td><td>Impulsivity Tertile 1</td><td>2.00 (1.33–2.67)</td><td rowspan="3">&lt;.0001</td></tr><tr><td>CFC Tertile 2</td><td>2.17 (1.67–2.83)</td><td>Impulsivity Tertile 2</td><td>2.17 (1.67–2.83)</td></tr><tr><td>CFC Tertile 3</td><td>2.17 (1.50–2.83)</td><td>Impulsivity Tertile 3</td><td>2.33 (1.83–3.00)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">MEN</td><td>CFC Tertile 1</td><td>1.67 (1.00–2.17)</td><td rowspan="3">.78</td><td>Impulsivity Tertile 1</td><td>1.50 (1.00–2.00)</td><td rowspan="3">&lt;.0001</td></tr><tr><td>CFC Tertile 2</td><td>1.67 (1.17–2.17)</td><td>Impulsivity Tertile 2</td><td>1.67 (1.17–2.17)</td></tr><tr><td>CFC Tertile 3</td><td>1.67 (1.00–2.17)</td><td>Impulsivity Tertile 3</td><td>1.83 (1.17–2.50)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Emotional eating score ranges from 1 to 4

CFC-12 Consideration of Future Consequences scale, high CFC-12 scores indicate a high level of future orientation

BIS-11 Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (11th version), high BIS-11 scores indicate a high level of impulsivity

The three categories of CFC-12 and BIS-11 were calculated according to tertiles of the total score

¹p-values are based on Kruskal-Wallis tests (corrected for multiple testing with a Holm-Bonferroni procedure)
<table><caption>**Table 3** Association between emotional eating and repeated measures of BMI according to consideration of future consequences categories (CFC) (NutriNet-Santé study, 2014)</caption><thead><tr><th>Gender</th><th>CFC</th><th>EmE<br>β<sup>1</sup> (95% CI)</th><th>p<sup>2</sup></th><th>EmE × CFC-12<br>β<sup>3</sup> (95% CI)</th><th>p<sup>2</sup></th><th>EmE × CFC-12<br>β<sup>3</sup> (95% CI)</th><th>p<sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Women</td><td>CFC Tertile 1</td><td>1.72 (1.63, 1.81)</td><td>&lt;.0001</td><td>Ref</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CFC Tertile 2</td><td>1.48 (1.37, 1.59)</td><td>&lt;.0001</td><td>-0.23 (-0.37, -0.09)</td><td>.007</td><td>Ref</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CFC Tertile 3</td><td>1.29 (1.20, 1.38)</td><td>&lt;.0001</td><td>-0.43 (-0.55, -0.30)</td><td>&lt;.0001</td><td>-0.19 (-0.33, -0.05)</td><td>.03</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Men</td><td>CFC Tertile 1</td><td>1.18 (1.04, 1.33)</td><td>&lt;.0001</td><td>Ref</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CFC Tertile 2</td><td>0.83 (0.65, 1.00)</td><td>&lt;.0001</td><td>-0.36 (-0.58, -0.13)</td><td>.01</td><td>Ref</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CFC Tertile 3</td><td>0.91 (0.76, 1.06)</td><td>&lt;.0001</td><td>-0.27 (-0.48, -0.07)</td><td>.03</td><td>0.08 (-0.15, 0.31)</td><td>.48</td></tr></tbody></table>

CFC-12 Consideration of Future Consequences scale, high CFC-12 scores indicate a high level of future orientation

The three categories of CFC-12 were calculated according to tertiles of the total score

EmE, Emotional Eating, is continuous variable ranging from 1 to 4

previous work, the depletion of self-regulatory resources and conflicting goals can reduce the ability to regulate one's behavior [61], which could therefore increase desire for immediate rewards. Another study showed that a higher level of immediate concerns was a better predictor of low self-control compared to a higher level of future concerns [50].

In agreement with the literature, EmE and impulsivity were positively associated in both men and women [62–64]. A high level of impulsivity could lead to impairments in inhibitory control which impede impulsive individuals to resist urges to eat, especially in response to negative emotional states [63]. The inhibition (of urge to eat) could be manifested by delaying, suppressing, or completely preventing the impulsive action [34].

## EmE and BMI change

In agreement with cross-sectional [7, 19–22] and longitudinal studies [22–24], EmE was positively associated

with BMI in our sample. Our results showed a stronger relationship between EmE and BMI in women, which is consistent with some studies [17, 20, 21], but not all [19, 65]. More specifically, EmE was also positively associated with an increase in BMI over the period of follow-up (data not shown). However, this effect was not moderated by CFC and impulsivity. This absence of moderation could be related to a lack of statistical power regarding second-order interaction tests [66], particularly among men. It is also possible that the duration of the follow-up was too short to observe a meaningful difference. Moreover, we did not obtain repeated measures of CFC and impulsivity to assess individual changes regarding these scales.

## Influence of CFC on the association between EmE and weight status

CFC moderated the relationship between EmE and weight status in women and men. The more future oriented the individuals were, the weaker was the

<table><caption>**Table 4** Association between emotional eating and repeated measures of BMI according to impulsivity categories (NutriNet-Santé study, 2014)</caption><thead><tr><th>Gender</th><th>BIS-11</th><th>EmE<br>β<sup>1</sup> (95% CI)</th><th>p<sup>2</sup></th><th>EmE × BIS-11<br>β<sup>3</sup> (95% CI)</th><th>p<sup>2</sup></th><th>EmE × BIS-11<br>β<sup>3</sup> (95% CI)</th><th>p<sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Women</td><td>Impulsivity Tertile 1</td><td>1.35 (1.25, 1.46)</td><td>&lt;.0001</td><td>Ref</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Impulsivity Tertile 2</td><td>1.47 (1.38, 1.57)</td><td>&lt;.0001</td><td>0.12 (-0.02, 0.26)</td><td>.18</td><td>Ref</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Impulsivity Tertile 3</td><td>1.73 (1.63, 1.82)</td><td>&lt;.0001</td><td>0.37 (0.24, 0.51)</td><td>&lt;.0001</td><td>0.26 (0.12, 0.39)</td><td>.0009</td></tr><tr><td>Men</td><td>All</td><td>1.00 (0.91, 1.10)</td><td>&lt;.0001</td><td>—</td><td></td><td>—</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

BIS-11, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (11th version), high BIS-11 scores indicate a high level of impulsivity

The three categories of BIS-11 were calculated according to tertiles of the total score

EmE, Emotional Eating, is continuous variable ranging from 1 to 4

<footnote n="1">¹β coefficients of the EmE effect can be interpreted as changes in BMI (in kg/m²) per increase of 1 point in the EmE scale in each CFC category</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Adjusted p-value (correction for multiple testing with a Holm-Bonferroni procedure) based on linear mixed-effects models with time, age, education level, occupational status, monthly income household unit, smoking status, physical activity, and history of dieting as fixed effects, and intercept and time as random effects</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³β coefficients of the EmE × CFC-12 interaction can be interpreted as differences of BMI slope (in kg/m²) per increase of 1 point in the EmE scale between CFC categories</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹β coefficients of the EmE effect can be interpreted as changes in BMI (in kg/m²) per increase of 1 point in the EmE scale in each impulsivity category</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Adjusted p-value (correction for multiple testing with a Holm-Bonferroni procedure) based on linear mixed-effects models with time, age, education level, occupational status, monthly income household unit, smoking status, physical activity, and history of dieting as fixed effects, and intercept and time as random effects</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³β coefficients of the EmE × BIS-11 interaction can be interpreted as differences in change of BMI (in kg/m²) per increase of 1 point in the EmE scale between impulsivity categories</footnote>
relationship between EmE and BMI, indicating the syn-
ergism between CFC and EmE. In the literature, CFC
was shown to be associated negatively with BMI [31]
and positively with several behavioral outcomes, such as
healthy eating, lower smoking, and a decreased con-
sumption of alcohol [60]. Our results could indicate a
protective effect of CFC in dealing with negative emo-
tions. Considering potential negative consequences of
one's behavior such as weight gain could be a mean that
individuals use when feeling urges to eat in response to
negative emotions. However, positive outcomes could be
a more effective solution to regulate immediate tempta-
tions [67, 68]. Individuals with high CFC may as a con-
sequence eat smaller portions of foods or select food
with lower energy content. Individuals with a more pro-
nounced future perspective measured by the Zimbardo
Time Perspective Inventory also reported to be more
mindful [69] (i.e having nonjudgmental attention, open-
ness, and an acceptance of immediate experience [70]),
and these constructs are thought to share common
mechanisms [71, 72]. In mindfulness-based interven-
tions, individuals are trained to attend to negative feel-
ings and accept them, which allow a better consideration
of potential consequences of one's behavior on the body.
Consequently, mindfulness has been shown to increase
self-regulatory resources [73], which could lead to lower
concerns over immediate temptations. These interven-
tions have been found successful in reducing EmE
occurrences and diminishing the urge to emotionally
overeat [74, 75]. Another strategy based on episodic
future thinking, "a projection of the self into the future
to pre-experience an event" [76], found a reduction of
snacking (as well as caloric intake coming from
snacks) and diminished the need for immediate
gratification [77].

Influence of impulsivity on the association between EmE
and weight status

Impulsivity moderated the relationship between EmE
and BMI in women. The more impulsive the individuals
were, the stronger was the relationship between EmE
and BMI. To our knowledge, the potential moderation
effect of impulsivity on the relationship between EmE
and weight status has not been previously studied. An
impulsive behavior was found associated with weight
status [3, 35, 46-49], a tendance to overeat [35-37], and
eating disorders [38-44]. Highly impulsive individuals
are more susceptible to present immediate impulses to
eat in response to negative emotional states [62, 78, 79]
while less impulsive individuals show a greater mindful-
ness [69]. Impulsivity may lead individuals with EmE to
have more eating episodes following emotions, or to ex-
perience episodes of greater intensity, with intake of
larger portions. A better inhibitory control could lead to

fewer inner impulses and lower the tendency to eat an
excessive amount of food, as shown by studies using in-
hibitory control trainings [80–82].

Gender differences

Marginal significant gender differences were found in
our study concerning the level of CFC and impulsivity.
In the literature, no gender differences were found re-
garding the level of CFC [32], and mixed findings were
found regarding differences in impulsivity [51, 83]. CFC
and impulsivity moderated the relationship between
EmE and BMI mostly in women. Moderating effects in
men were less consistent. The psychological determi-
nants influencing the ability to control urges to eat in re-
sponse to negative emotions could therefore be different
among impulsive men. These results illustrate the need
to take gender into account when studying associations
between eating behavior and health markers such as
weight status.

Strengths and limitations

The main strength of this study is its large sample size
with individuals of various socio-demographic character-
istics and nutritional status, which allows the use of
multiple covariates to adjust for confounding factors.
However, we cannot rule out the possibility that other
important confounders were not taken into account
such as levels of anxiety or stress. To our knowledge,
only a few studies have assessed the moderating effect of
psychological traits in the relationship between EmE and
weight status. Thus, this study offers novel perspectives
to better understand EmE and its association with
weight. One limitation of our study concerns the delay
between the administration of the TFEQ-R21 and the
CFC-12 and BIS-11. Changes in EmE, CFC and impul-
sivity for some participants could have occurred during
this period. However, as they represent psychological
constructs, a low time variability can be assumed, as it
has been suggested for impulsivity [51]. Another limit is
the self-reported anthropometric measures, which could
have led to attribution errors. However, standardized
clinical measurements on a subsample (n = 2513) of the
NutriNet-Santé cohort showed a good convergence with
self-reported data [84]. Our study could also present a
selection bias because of the method used to recruit par-
ticipants, which was based on volunteering. Conse-
quently, our subjects may have high health awareness
compared to the global population, and may not be rep-
resentative of the French population. Recent studies re-
ported a two-factor structure of the CFC-12,
distinguishing immediate and future subscales. Even
though there is no consensus on the use of the CFC-12,
a two-dimension analysis could have added another per-
spective in our interpretation of the results. The BIS-11
questionnaire is one of the most used self-report measures of impulsivity. However, considering the multidimensionality of impulsivity as a construct and its various methods of measurement, caution is needed when interpreting and extrapolating our results.

## Conclusions

In conclusion, our results show that CFC moderates the association between emotional eating and BMI (but not BMI change) among men and women. We also observed a similar moderation effect of impulsivity on the association between emotional eating and BMI (but not BMI change) in women. Being more future oriented could increase emotional self-control, and being less impulsive could help to reduce the occurrence of urges to eat. CFC and impulsivity could therefore represent two important psychological traits to take into account when attempting to prevent overeating in response to negative emotions. Interventional strategies targeting cognitive control such as inhibitory control training, episodic future thinking, message framing, and self-awareness (e.g., mindfulness based interventions) could be tested for their ability to increase consideration of future consequences and/or decrease impulsivity in relation to eating behavior.

## Additional files

**Additional file 1:** Association between emotional eating and BMI according to consideration of future consequences categories (CFC) in women. (DOCX 19 kb)

**Additional file 2:** Association between emotional eating and BMI according to consideration of future consequences categories (CFC) in men. (DOCX 20 kb)

**Additional file 3:** Association between emotional eating and BMI according to impulsivity categories in women. (DOCX 19 kb)

### Abbreviations

BIS-11: Barratt Impulsiveness Scale; CFC: Consideration of future consequences; CFC-12: Consideration of future consequences scale; CNIL: Commission Nationale Informatique et Libertés; CU: Consumption unit; EmE: Emotional eating; IRB: International Research Board of the French Institute for Health and Medical Research; TFEQ-R21: Revised 21-item Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire

### Acknowledgments

We thank Younes Esseddik, Thi Duong Van, Frédéric Coffinieres, Mac Rakotondrazafy, Régis Gatibelza and Paul Flanzy (computer scientists) and Nathalie Arnault, Véronique Gourlet, Fabien Szabo, Julien Allegre, Anouar Nechba and Laurent Bourhis (data-manager/biostatisticians) for their technical contribution to the NutriNet-Santé study. We thank all the volunteers of the NutriNet-Santé cohort.

### Funding

The NutriNet-Santé Study is supported by the French Ministry of Health (DGS), the Santé Publique France agency, the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM), the French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), the National Conservatory for Arts and Crafts (CNAM), the Medical Research Foundation (FRM), and the University of Paris 13. This research was part of the FOODPOL project, which was supported by the French National Institute for Agricultural Research (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique) in the context of the 2013–2017 Metaprogramme “Diet impacts and determinants: Interactions and Transitions”.

### Availability of data and materials

In France, there is a very strict regulation concerning the protection of personal data and privacy making difficult the availability of raw data (even non-nominal data). The data may be subject to collaborations with other research team, in that case, please contact the authors.

### Authors' contributions

MB conducted the literature review and drafted the manuscript. MB performed analyses. MB, FB, FE, GR, EK-G, SH, and SP were involved in interpreting results and critically reviewed the manuscript. EK-G, SH and SP were responsible for developing the design and protocol of the study. MB, FB, FE, GR, EK-G, SH, and SP report no conflict of interest. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

### Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and all procedures were approved by the International Research Board of the French Institute for Health and Medical Research (IRB Inserm n° 0000388FWA00005831) and the Commission Nationale Informatique et Libertés (CNIL n° 908,450 and n° 909,216). Electronic informed consent was obtained from all participants.

### Consent for publication

Not applicable.

### Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

### Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

### Author details

¹Equipe de Recherche en Epidémiologie Nutritionnelle, Centre de Recherche en Epidémiologie et Statistique Sorbonne Paris Cité, INSERM U1153, INRA U1125, Cnam, Université Paris 13, Bobigny, France. ²Paris School of Economics and INRA, UMR1393 PjSE, 48 Boulevard Jourdan, 75014 Paris, France. ³Service d'Endocrinologie, Diabétologie, Maladies Métaboliques, Hôpital Avicenne, Bobigny, France. ⁴Département de Santé Publique, Hôpital Avicenne, Bobigny, France.

Received: 23 January 2018 Accepted: 30 August 2018

Published online: 06 September 2018

### References

1. Organization WH, Organization WH. Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic: report of a WHO consultation. WHO Tech Rep Ser. 1999; 894:253.

2. Herman CP, Polivy J. Anxiety, restraint, and eating behavior. J Abnorm Psychol. 1975;84:666.

3. Terracciano A, Sutin AR, McCrae RR, Deiana B, Ferrucci L, Schlessinger D, et al. Facets of personality linked to underweight and overweight. Psychosom Med. 2009;71:682–9.

4. Camilleri GM, Méjean C, Kesse-Guyot E, Andreeva VA, Bellisle F, Hercberg S, Péneau, S. The associations between emotional eating and consumption of energy-dense snack foods are modified by sex and depressive symptomatology. J Nutr. 2014;144(8):1264–73. https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/144/8/1264/4571773.

5. De Lauzon B, Romon M, Deschamps V, Lafay L, Borys J-M, Karlsson J, et al. The three-factor eating questionnaire-R18 is able to distinguish among different eating patterns in a general population. J Nutr. 2004;134:2372–80.

6. Elfhag K, Tholin S, Rasmussen F. Consumption of fruit, vegetables, sweets and soft drinks are associated with psychological dimensions of eating behaviour in parents and their 12-year-old children. Public Health Nutr. 2008;11:914–23.

7. Kontinen H, Silventoinen K, Sarlio-Lahteenkorva S, Mannisto S, Haukkala A. Emotional eating and physical activity self-efficacy as pathways in the
association between depressive symptoms and adiposity indicators. Am J ClinNutr. 2010;92:1031–9.

8. van Strien T, Herman CP, Anschutz DJ, Engels RC, de Weerth C. Moderation of distress-induced eating by emotional eating scores. Appetite. 2012;58: 277–84.

9. Anschutz DJ, Van Strien T, Van De Ven MO, Engels RC. Eating styles and energy intake in young women. Appetite. 2009;53:119–22.

10. Lluch A, Herbeth B, Mejean L, Siest G. Dietary intakes, eating style and overweight in the Stanislas family study. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000;24:1493–9.

11. Eldredge KL, Agras WS. Weight and shape overconcern and emotional eating in binge eating disorder. Int J Eat Disord. 1996;19:73–82.

12. Fischer S, Chen E, Katterman S, Roerhig M, Bochierri-Ricciardi L, Munoz D, et al. Emotional eating in a morbidly obese bariatric surgery-seeking population. Obes Surg. 2007;17:778–84.

13. Oliver G, Wardle J, Gibson EL. Stress and food choice: a laboratory study. Psychosom Med. 2000;62:853–65.

14. Pinaquy S, Chabrol H, Simon C, Louvet J-P, Barbe P. Emotional eating, alexithymia, and binge-eating disorder in obese women. Obesity. 2003;11: 195–201.

15. Ricca V, Castellini G, Sauro CL, Ravaldi C, Lapi F, Mannucci E, et al. Correlations between binge eating and emotional eating in a sample of overweight subjects. Appetite. 2009;53:418–21.

16. Angle S, Engblom J, Eriksson T, Kautiainen S, Saha MT, Lindfors P, et al. Three factor eating questionnaire-R18 as a measure of cognitive restraint, uncontrolled eating and emotional eating in a sample of young Finnish females. IntJ Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2009;6:41–7.

17. Konttinen H, Haukkala A, Sarlio-Lahteenkorva S, Silventoinen K, Jousilahti P. Eating styles, self-control and obesity indicators. The moderating role of obesity status and dieting history on restrained eating. Appetite. 2009; 53:131–4.

18. van Strien T, Herman CP, Verheijden MW. Eating style, overeating, and overweight in a representative Dutch sample. Does external eating play a role? Appetite. 2009;52:380–7.

19. Gallant AR, Tremblay A, Perusse L, Bouchard C, Despres JP, Drapeau V. The three-factor eating questionnaire and BMI in adolescents: results from the Quebec family study. BrJNutr. 2010;104:1074–9.

20. Laitinen J, Ek E, Sovio U. Stress-related eating and drinking behavior and body mass index and predictors of this behavior. Prev Med. 2002;34:29–39.

21. Péneau S, Ménard E, Méjean C, Bellisle F, Hercberg S. Sex and dieting modify the association between emotional eating and weight status. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;97:1307–13.

22. Sung J, Lee K, Song YM. Relationship of eating behavior to long-term weight change and body mass index: the healthy twin study. Eat Weight Disord. 2009;14:e98–105.

23. Koenders PG, van ST. Emotional eating, rather than lifestyle behavior, drives weight gain in a prospective study in 1562 employees. J Occup Environ Med. 2011;53:1287–93.

24. Hays NP, Roberts SB. Aspects of eating behaviors "disinhibition" and "restraint" are related to weight gain and BMI in women. Obesity. 2008; 16:52–8.

25. Canetti L, Berry EM, Elizur Y. Psychosocial predictors of weight loss and psychological adjustment following bariatric surgery and a weight-loss program: the mediating role of emotional eating. Int J Eat Disord. 2009;42: 109–17.

26. Strathman A, Gleicher F, Boninger DS, Edwards CS. The consideration of future consequences: weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994;66:742–52.

27. van Beek J, Antonides G, Handgraaf MJ. Eat now, exercise later: the relation between consideration of immediate and future consequences and healthy behavior. Personal Individ Differ. 2013;54:785–91.

28. Joireman J, Shaffer MJ, Balliet D, Strathman A. Promotion orientation explains why future-oriented people exercise and eat healthy evidence from the two-factor consideration of future consequences-14 scale. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2012;38:1272–87.

29. Ouellette JA, Hessling R, Gibbons FX, Reis-Bergan M, Gerrard M. Using images to increase exercise behavior: prototypes versus possible selves. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2005;31:610–20.

30. Orbell S, Perugini M, Rakow T. Individual differences in sensitivity to health communications: consideration of future consequences. Health Psychol. 2004;23:388.

31. Adams J, Nettle D. Time perspective, personality and smoking, body mass, and physical activity: an empirical study. Br J Health Psychol. 2009;14:83–105.

32. Adams J, White M. Time perspective in socioeconomic inequalities in smoking and body mass index. Health Psychol. 2009;28:83.

33. Moeller FG, Barratt ES, Dougherty DM, Schmitz JM, Swann AC. Psychiatric aspects of impulsivity. Am J Psychiatry. 2001;158:1783–93.

34. Bari A, Robbins TW. Inhibition and impulsivity: behavioral and neural basis of response control. Prog Neurobiol. 2013;108:44–79.

35. Guerrieri R, Nederkoorn C, Jansen A. The effect of an impulsive personality on overeating and obesity: current state of affairs. Pshiol Teme. 2008;17: 265–86.

36. Jansen A, Nederkoorn C, van Baak L, Keirse C, Guerrieri R, Havermans R. High-restrained eaters only overeat when they are also impulsive. Behav Res Ther. 2009;47:105–10.

37. Yeomans MR, Leitch M, Mobini S. Impulsivity is associated with the disinhibition but not restraint factor from the three factor eating questionnaire. Appetite. 2008;50:469–76.

38. Claes L, Vandereycken W, Vertommen H. Impulsivity-related traits in eating disorder patients. Personal Individ Differ. 2005;39:739–49.

39. Dawa S, Loxton NJ. The role of impulsivity in the development of substance use and eating disorders. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2004;28:343–51.

40. Fahy T, Eisler I. Impulsivity and eating disorders. Br J Psychiatry. 1993; 162:193–7.

41. Fischer S, Smith GT, Anderson KG. Clarifying the role of impulsivity in bulimia nervosa. Int J Eat Disord. 2003;33:406–11.

42. Rosval L, Steiger H, Bruce K, Israël M, Richardson J, Aubut M. Impulsivity in women with eating disorders: problem of response inhibition, planning, or attention? Int J Eat Disord. 2006;39:590–3.

43. Schag K, Schönleber J, Teufel M, Zipfel S, Giel KE. Food-related impulsivity in obesity and binge eating disorder – a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2013;14:477–95.

44. Waxman SE. A systematic review of impulsivity in eating disorders. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2009;17:408–25.

45. Gerlach G, Herpertz S, Löber S. Personality traits and obesity: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2015;16:32–63.

46. Mobbs O, Crépin C, Thiéry C, Golay A, Van der Linden M. Obesity and the four facets of impulsivity. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;79:372–7.

47. Nederkoorn C, Smulders FT, Havermans RC, Roefs A, Jansen A. Impulsivity in obese women. Appetite. 2006;47:253–6.

48. Rydén A, Sullivan M, Torgerson JS, Karlsson J, Lindroos AK, Taft C. Severe obesity and personality: a comparative controlled study of personality traits. Int J Obes. 2003;27:1534–40.

49. Van den Berg L, Pieterse K, Malik JA, Luman M, van Dijk KW, Oosterlaan J, et al. Association between impulsivity, reward responsiveness and body mass index in children. Int J Obes. 2011;35:1301–7.

50. Joireman J, Balliet D, Sprott D, Spangenberg E, Schultz J. Consideration of future consequences, ego-depletion, and self-control: support for distinguishing between CFC-immediate and CFC-future sub-scales. Personal Individ Differ. 2008;45:15–21.

51. Stanford MS, Mathias CW, Dougherty DM, Lake SL, Anderson NE, Patton JH. Fifty years of the Barratt impulsiveness scale: an update and review. Personal Individ Differ. 2009;47:385–95.

52. Hofmann W, Friese M, Strack F. Impulse and self-control from a dual-systems perspective. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2009;4:162–76.

53. Hercberg S, Castetbon K, Czernichow S, Malon A, Mejean C, Kesse E, et al. The Nutrinet-Santé study: a web-based prospective study on the relationship between nutrition and health and determinants of dietary patterns and nutritional status. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:242.

54. Tholin S, Rasmussen F, Tynelius P, Karlsson J. Genetic and environmental influences on eating behavior: the Swedish young male twins study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005;81:564–9.

55. Demarque C, Apostolidis T, Chagnard A, Dany L. Adaptation et validation française de l'échelle de perspective temporelle «Consideration of future consequences» (CFC). Bull Psychol. 2010;351:60–

56. Baylé FJ, Bourdel MC, Caci H, Gorwood P, Chignon JM, Adés J, et al. Factor analysis of french translation of the Barratt impulsivity scale (BIS-10). Can J Psychiatry Rev Can Psychiatr. 2000;45:156–65.

57. Patton JH, Stanford MS, Barratt ES. Factor structure of the Barratt impulsiveness scale. J Clin Psychol. 1995;51:768–74.

58. Haenaars AJ, De Vos K, Asghar Zaidi M. Poverty statistics in the late 1980s: Research based on micro-data 1994.
59. Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjöström M, Bauman AE, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE, et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35:1381–95.

60. Joireman J, King S. Individual differences in the consideration of future and (more) immediate consequences: a review and directions for future research. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2016;10:313–26.

61. Baumeister RF. Yielding to temptation: self-control failure, impulsive purchasing, and consumer behavior. J Consum Res. 2002;28:670–6.

62. Ebneter D, Latner J, Rosewall J, Chisholm A. Impulsivity in restrained eaters: emotional and external eating are associated with attentional and motor impulsivity. Eat Weight Disord EWD. 2012;17:e62–5.

63. Jasinska AJ, Yasuda M, Burant CF, Gregor N, Khatri S, Sweet M, et al. Impulsivity and inhibitory control deficits are associated with unhealthy eating in young adults. Appetite. 2012;59:738–47.

64. Ouwens MA, van Strien T, van Leeuwe JF. Possible pathways between depression, emotional and external eating. A structural equation model. Appetite. 2009;53:245–8.

65. Pothos EM, Tapper K, Calitri R. Cognitive and behavioral correlates of BMI among male and female undergraduate students. Appetite. 2009;52: 797–800.

66. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern epidemiology. 2008.

67. D'Argembeau A, Renaud O, Van der Linden M. Frequency, characteristics and functions of future-oriented thoughts in daily life. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2011;25:96–103.

68. Liu PJ, Wisdom J, Roberto CA, Liu LJ, Ubel PA. Using behavioral economics to design more effective food policies to address obesity. Appl Econ Perspect Policy. 2014;36:6–24.

69. Wittmann M, Peter J, Gutina O, Otten S, Kohls N, Meissner K. Individual differences in self-attributed mindfulness levels are related to the experience of time and cognitive self-control. Personal Individ Differ. 2014; 64:41–5.

70. Bishop SR, Lau M, Shapiro S, Carlson L, Anderson ND, Carmody J, et al. Mindfulness: a proposed operational definition. Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 2004; 11:230–41.

71. Drake L, Duncan E, Sutherland F, Abernethy C, Henry C. Time perspective and correlates of wellbeing. Time Soc. 2008;17:47–61.

72. Seema R, Sircova A. Mindfulness-a time perspective? Estonian Study. Balt J Psychol. 2013;14(1):4–21.

73. Friese M, Messner C, Schaffner Y. Mindfulness meditation counteracts self-control depletion. Conscious Cogn. 2012;21:1016–22.

74. Katterman SN, Kleinman BM, Hood MM, Nackers LM, Corsica JA. Mindfulness meditation as an intervention for binge eating, emotional eating, and weight loss: a systematic review. Eat Behav. 2014;15:197–204.

75. O'Reilly GA, Cook L, Spruijt-Metz D, Black DS. Mindfulness-based interventions for obesity-related eating behaviours: a literature review. Obes Rev. 2014;15:453–61.

76. Atance CM, O'Neill DK. Episodic future thinking. Trends Cogn Sci. 2001;5: 533–9.

77. Dassen FC, Jansen A, Nederkoorn C, Houben K. Focus on the future: episodic future thinking reduces discount rate and snacking. Appetite. 2016; 96:327–32.

78. Bekker MH, van de Meerendonk C, Mollerus J. Effects of negative mood induction and impulsivity on self-perceived emotional eating. Int J Eat Disord. 2004;36:461–9.

79. Racine SE, Culbert KM, Larson CL, Klump KL. The possible influence of impulsivity and dietary restraint on associations between serotonin genes and binge eating. J Psychiatr Res. 2009;43:1278–86.

80. Houben K, Jansen A. Training inhibitory control. A recipe for resisting sweet temptations. Appetite. 2011;56:345–9.

81. Houben K. Overcoming the urge to splurge: influencing eating behavior by manipulating inhibitory control. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2011;42:384–8.

82. Jones A, Di Lemma LC, Robinson E, Christiansen P, Nolan S, Tudur-Smith C, et al. Inhibitory control training for appetitive behaviour change: a meta-analytic investigation of mechanisms of action and moderators of effectiveness. Appetite. 2016;97:16–28.

83. Cross CP, Copping LT, Campbell A. Sex differences in impulsivity: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2011;137:97–130.

84. Lassale C, Péneau S, Touvier M, Julia C, Galan P, Hercberg S, et al. Validity of web-based self-reported weight and height: results of the Nutrinet-Santé study. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15

Ready to submit your research? Choose BMC and benefit from:

• fast, convenient online submission

• thorough peer review by experienced researchers in your field

• rapid publication on acceptance

• support for research data, including large and complex data types

• gold Open Access which fosters wider collaboration and increased citations

• maximum visibility for your research: over 100M website views per year

At BMC, research is always in progress.

Learn more biomedcentral.com/submissions

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>