Emotion

Emotion Suppression, Emotional Eating, and Eating

Behavior Among Parent–Adolescent Dyads
Rebecca A. Ferrer, Paige A. Green, April Y. Oh, Erin Hennessy, and Laura A. Dwyer
Online First Publication, April 3, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000295

CITATION
Ferrer, R. A., Green, P. A., Oh, A. Y., Hennessy, E., & Dwyer, L. A. (2017, April 3). Emotion
Suppression, Emotional Eating, and Eating Behavior Among Parent–Adolescent Dyads. Emotion.
Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000295
Emotion In the public domain
2017, Vol. 0, No. 999, 000 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000295

Emotion Suppression, Emotional Eating, and Eating Behavior Among

Parent–Adolescent Dyads

Rebecca A. Ferrer, Paige A. Green, and April Y. Oh Erin Hennessy

National Institutes of Health Tufts University

Laura A. Dwyer
Cape Fox Facilities Services, Manassas, Virginia

Emotion suppression may lead to ironic increases in emotional experience. More important, suppression
is a transactional process, creating stress and disrupting interactions for the suppressor and those in social
interactions with individuals who are suppressing emotion. However, no research has examined the
behavioral consequences of emotion suppression in close relationships. We examine the possibility that
emotion suppression will predict eating behaviors as a secondary emotion regulatory strategy among
1,556 parent–adolescent dyads (N ⫽ 3,112), consistent with evidence suggesting that suppression
influences eating at the individual-level. Actor-partner interdependence models and structural equation
modeling demonstrate that one’s own emotion suppression was associated with emotional eating; greater
consumption of hedonic—low nutrient, high energy dense—foods; and lower consumption of fruits and
vegetables (actor effects). One’s partner’s emotion suppression was also independently associated with
one’s own emotional eating; lower consumption of fruits and vegetables; and greater consumption of
hedonic foods (partner effects), although this association was most consistent for adolescents’ suppres-
sion and parents’ eating (compared with the converse). These analyses suggest that dyadic emotion
regulatory processes have implications on eating behavior. Moreover, analyses suggest that emotion
suppression has potential implications on eating behaviors of others within close relationships with a
suppressor, consistent with the notion that emotion regulation is a transactional process. These findings
suggest that interventions to improve eating habits of parents and their adolescent children should
consider dyadic emotion regulatory processes.

Keywords: emotion regulation, emotion suppression, eating behavior

Social circumstances where it is necessary to engage in emotion
suppression— or purposely contain one’s emotional reaction and
its accompanying nonverbal facial and bodily displays—are ubiq-
uitous (Gross & John, 2003). Inappropriate social displays of
emotion can have serious consequences, such as when an em-
ployee fails to suppress anger expressions in front of his supervisor
and colleagues (e.g., Tavris, 1984). Even relatively mild inappro-
priate displays of emotion can seem consequential. For example,
children are taught not to convey disappointment when they re-
ceive a gift they do not like (e.g., Carlson & Wang, 2007). Indeed,
even among children, inhibitory control is seen as a sign of social
and emotional competence (Rhoades, Greenberg, & Domitrovich,
2009). Accordingly, emotion suppression is relatively common in
social exchanges, and can have positive consequences for relation-
ships (see Butler & Gross, 2004). For example, suppression can
prevent escalation of negative emotions in relationships, contrib-

necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and

Rebecca A. Ferrer and Paige A. Green, Basic Biobehavioral and Psy-
chological Sciences Branch, Behavioral Research Program, Division of
Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Na-
tional Institutes of Health; April Y. Oh, Health Communication and Infor-
matics Research Branch, Behavioral Research Program, Division of Can-
cer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National
Institutes of Health; Erin Hennessy, Friedman School of Nutrition Science
and Policy, Tufts University; Laura A. Dwyer, Cape Fox Facilities Ser-
vices, Manassas, Virginia.
The FLASHE study was funded by the National Cancer Institute
under contract HHSN261201200039I issued to Westat. This project has
been funded in whole or in part with federal funds from the National
Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, under contract
HHSN261200800001E (EH). The content of this publication does not
Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial prod-
ucts, or organizations imply endorsement by the US Government.
Additional funding was provided through a Cancer Research Training
Award from the National Cancer Institute (LAD). At the time this study
was conducted, Hennessy was a Senior Behavioral Scientist (Contrac-
tor), Clinical Research Directorate/Clinical Monitoring Research Pro-
gram, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., NCI Campus at Frederick,
Frederick, MD 21702.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rebecca
A. Ferrer, Health Scientist/Program Director, Basic Biobehavioral and
Psychological Sciences Branch, Behavioral Research Program, Division of
Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Na-
tional Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD
20850. E-mail: ferrerra@mail.nih.gov

1
2 FERRER, GREEN, OH, HENNESSY, AND DWYER
uting to relationship maintenance (Kennedy-Moore & Watson,
2001).
However, emotion suppression has also been shown to have
negative consequences (Gross, 1998, 1999). Like other attempts to
consciously suppress psychological processes and thoughts (e.g.,
Wegner, Schneider, Carter, & White, 1987), experimental evi-
dence demonstrates emotion suppression often results in an ironic
increase in the subjective experience of emotion (and accompa-
nying physiological processes; Gross, 1998; Gross & Levenson,
1997; Harris, 2001; Richards & Gross, 1999, 2000). For example,
individuals instructed to suppress disgust when watching a video
depicting a graphic surgical procedure report experiencing greater
subjective feelings of disgust than those who watch the video
without instruction (Gross & Levenson, 1993). Of note, some
individuals tend to engage in emotion suppression strategies more
than others, and the consequences of habitual suppression may
extend beyond the laboratory (Gross & John, 2003; John & Gross,
2004). Individuals who tend to suppress negative emotions expe-
rience negative consequences, consistent with those observed in
experiments, including ironic increases in subjective negative af-
fect, depression, and anxiety, as well as decreased well-being
(Haga, Kraft, & Corby, 2009; Moore, Zoellner, & Mollenholt,
2008).
Social Consequences of Suppression
Because emotion suppression unfolds in social contexts, the
negative consequences of emotion suppression can be social in
addition to affective (Butler & Gross, 2004, 2009). Research
suggests that both spontaneous daily suppression and experimen-
tally induced suppression are associated with lower well-being and
perceived quality of the parent– child bond among parents of
young children (Le & Impett, 2016). Moreover, experimentally
induced emotion suppression leads to greater memory for emo-
tional conversation content (during interactions in the laboratory)
and lower levels of rapport and affiliation among individuals
instructed to suppress before interacting with a romantic partner
(Richards, Butler, & Gross, 2003). Accordingly, habitual emotion
suppression has been linked to difficulties in forming close rela-
tionships (Srivastava, Tamir, McGonigal, John, & Gross, 2009).
Tendency to suppress emotion has also been linked to decreased
social support and weaker social connections (English, John, Sriv-
astava, & Gross, 2012; Labott, Martin, Eason, & Berkey, 1991;
Srivastava et al., 2009). Emotion suppression interferes with inti-
macy, precludes self-disclosure, and can be perceived as lacking
integrity (Butler & Gross, 2004). Moreover, suppression has del-
eterious consequences for self-reported relationship satisfaction
(English & John, 2013). In summary, engagement in this regula-
tory strategy has important implications for a number of outcomes
related to relationships (Butler & Gross, 2004; Gross, 2002; Gross
& John, 2003; John & Gross, 2004).
Emerging evidence also suggests the social consequences of
suppression extend beyond the individual who is suppressing.
Individuals that engage with suppressors in an experimental setting
report less desire to affiliate among previously unacquainted dyads
(Tackman & Srivastava, 2016). Moreover, experimentally induced
emotion suppression has dyadic consequences, such that it can
disrupt social exchanges among previously unacquainted dyads,
influencing interpersonal communication and creating additional
stress for both the suppressor and their interaction partner (Butler
et al., 2003; although see Richards et al., 2003 for evidence that
suppression does not have dyadic consequences for subjectively
experienced negative affect among romantic couples). Negative
social consequences of suppression are particularly common in
western cultures (Butler, Lee, & Gross, 2007).
Behavioral Consequences of Suppression
Research suggests that emotion suppression may have conse-
quences that extend beyond those in the social and affective
categories, resulting in behaviors that may not be in the actor’s best
interest—including unhealthy eating behaviors. Indeed, experi-
mental evidence shows that emotion suppression inductions lead to
unhealthy eating behaviors (Hofmann, Rauch, & Gawronski, 2007;
Taut, Renner, & Baban, 2012; Vohs & Heatherton, 2000). For
example, female dieters instructed to suppress in response to a sad
film ate more ice cream than those not instructed to suppress (Vohs
& Heatherton, 2000), and women instructed to suppress in re-
sponse to an emotional film ate more candy than those instructed
to watch naturally (Hofmann et al., 2007). Moreover, and also
consistent with experimental evidence, habitual emotion suppres-
sion is associated with increased consumption of hedonic foods
after negative emotion induction (Evers, Marijn Stok, & de Ridder,
2010). Similarly, habitual suppression has been linked to overeat-
ing reported in an experience sampling study, such that overweight
women are more likely to report overeating on days in which they
also tended to suppress emotion (Butler, Young, & Randall, 2010).
No known research to date has examined whether emotion sup-
pression leads to unhealthy eating behavior at a dyadic level,
although previously described evidence on the social conse-
quences of emotion suppression suggests the possibility that one’s
suppression could have behavioral consequences for a dyadic
partner.
The complex psychological processes through which emotion
regulation (including suppression) influences unhealthy eating re-
main undiscovered (Leith & Baumeister, 1996). One notable po-
tential mechanism involves ironic experiences of negative affect.
As stated, individuals who tend to engage in emotion suppression
experience increased negative affect, and thus, may experience
behavioral consequences associated with this negative affect (in-
cluding unhealthy eating; Gross & John, 2003; Haga, Kraft, &
Corby, 2009; John & Gross, 2004; Moore, Zoellner, & Mollenholt,
2008). Negative affect has been linked (in both experimental and
correlational studies) to overeating or excessive consumption of
hedonic foods (Arnow, Kenardy, & Agras, 1995; Cools, Schotte,
& McNally, 1992; Ganley, 1989; Gilboa-Schechtman, Avnon,
Zubery, & Jeczmien, 2006; Greeno & Wing, 1994; Hofmann,
Rauch, & Gawronski, 2007; Macht, 2008; Oliver, Wardle, &
Gibson, 2000; Tomiyama, Dallman, & Epel, 2011; Taut, Renner,
& Baban, 2012; Vohs & Heatherton, 2000). This association is
consistent with the concept of emotional eating, or eating in the
absence of hunger when anxious or sad (Arnow, Kenardy, &
Agras, 1995; Faith, Allison, Geliebter, & Dalton, 1997; Haedt-
Matt et al., 2014; VanStrien, Frijters, Bergers, & Defares, 1986).
As such, researchers have speculated that ineffective emotion
regulation strategies (such as suppression) may lead to maladap-
tive behaviors engaged as secondary regulatory strategies to de-
crease negative affect (including original negative affect that was
 EMOTION SUPPRESSION IN PARENT–ADOLESCENT DYADS
suppressed as well as ironic increases negative affect resulting
from suppression; Agras & Telch, 1998; Arnow et al., 1995;
Gagnon-Girouard et al., 2009; Ganley, 1989; Macht, 2008; Macht,
Haupt, & Ellgring, 2005; Macht & Simons, 2000; Wiser & Telch,
1999). Moreover, because an individual interacting with someone
who is suppressing emotions experiences increased negative affect
(Butler et al., 2003; Le & Impett, 2016), suppression could also
increase unhealthy eating among both people in a dyad where one
or both is suppressing.
These speculations have been borne out in some empirical
evidence: maladaptive emotion regulation strategies have been
linked to emotional eating, particularly among adolescents and
young adults (Crockett, Myhre, & Rokke, 2015). Indeed, emo-
tional eating may effectively regulate negative emotional experi-
ence by shifting the focus away from the self (Heatherton &
Baumeister, 1991), because hedonic foods are pleasing to the
senses (Lehman & Rodin, 1989) or otherwise pleasing because
they are taboo or forbidden (Fairburn & Cooper, 1982), through
activation of neural circuitry associated with reward (Adam &
Epel, 2007), and/or because of positive physiological changes in
response to consumption of hedonic foods (Heatherton &
Baumeister, 1991; Macht, 2008; Macht & Mueller, 2007; Spoor et
al., 2007).
An effect of emotion suppression on one’s own or one’s part-
ner’s unhealthy eating behaviors has important consequences.
Emotional eating, particularly among adolescents, has been linked
to eating in the absence of hunger (Nguyen-Michel, Unger, &
Spruijt-Metz, 2007), which results in consumption of more energy
dense foods in response to stress (Oliver, Wardle, & Gibson,
2000). Indeed, stress-induced eating has been linked to weight gain
(Laitinen, Ek, & Sovio, 2002). Given mounting evidence that
unhealthy eating behaviors contribute to myriad health conse-
quences both independently and via obesity (Fisher et al., 2002;
Ford, Zhao, Tsai, & Li, 2011; Khaw et al., 2008; Klein et al., 2014;
Pearson et al., 2002; Stefanek et al., 2009), recent syntheses have
underscored the importance of examining and targeting ineffective
emotion regulation strategies (including emotion suppression) to
facilitate healthier patterns of food choices (see DeSteno, Gross, &
Kubzansky, 2013; Ferrer, Green, & Barrett, 2015).
Theoretical Framework
Here, we extend findings linking emotion suppression to eating
behaviors by examining how individual differences in emotion
suppression are associated with eating behaviors among parent–
adolescent dyads, including emotional eating, consumption of he-
donic foods (i.e., low-nutrient, high energy dense foods), and fruit
and vegetable consumption. More important, we examine not only
whether one’s own emotion suppression influences these outcomes
(actor effects), but also whether one’s partner’s (i.e., parent’s
adolescent child, or adolescent’s parent) suppression influences
one’s own eating behavior (partner effects). Given the evidence
outlined above, we propose that emotion suppression has conse-
quences for eating behaviors among both the suppressor and his or
her dyadic interaction partner (i.e., parent and/or adolescent child).
Because emotion regulation results in increases of subjectively
experienced negative affect among the suppressor (Gross, 1998;
Gross & Levenson, 1997; Harris, 2001; Richards & Gross, 1999,
2000) and individuals interacting with the suppressor (Butler &
3
Gross, 2004; Le & Impett, 2016), and because negative affect is
associated with greater consumption of hedonic— but not nonhe-
donic—foods (Arnow et al., 1995; Cools et al., 1992; Garg et al.,
2007; Gilboa-Schechtman et al., 2006; Greeno & Wing, 1994;
Macht, 2008), we predict that emotion suppression contributes to
unhealthy eating behaviors among both suppressors and their
interaction partners through its influence on their emotional eating.
In addition to the proposed association of emotional eating with
reduced fruit and vegetable consumption articulated in this frame-
work, we note that fruit and vegetable consumption may be also be
negatively associated with hedonic food consumption because of
tendencies for individuals to “trade off” on their food choices (i.e.,
eating fewer fruits and vegetables when they are eating more
hedonic foods; e.g., Larson et al., 2008; Neumark-Sztainer et al.,
2003; Seghers & Rutten, 2010).
Despite the theoretical support for pathways in Figure 1, de-
scribed above, no research has examined whether emotion sup-
pression contributes to unhealthy eating behaviors within a dyadic
context in which the relationship is preexisting (as opposed to
among previously acquainted dyads), either directly or via emo-
tional eating. Moreover, no research has examined the dyadic
consequences of habitual (as opposed to experimentally induced)
emotion suppression. Addressing this research gap is important,
given that such a link may have consequences for the design of
interventions to promote healthy eating. Current interventions tar-
geting emotional eating largely focus on the individual-level an-
tecedents and consequences of emotional eating and related affec-
tive constructs (e.g., Armitage, 2015; Katterman et al., 2014), but
do not take into account social influences. Demonstrating that
emotion suppression has consequences for unhealthy eating be-
haviors at a dyadic level could change the way that interventions
targeting emotional eating are designed and developed, increasing
their efficacy.
Moderation
Although the framework presented in Figure 1 proposes main
effects of suppression on unhealthy eating behaviors, it is possible
that these effects may be stronger among some individuals com-
pared to others. Specifically, given that women tend to engage in
emotional eating as a compensatory regulatory strategy more often
than men (e.g., Tanofsky et al., 1997), and may also be more
affected by suppression because they are better able to identify
nuances of emotional communication (Sonnby-Borgstrom, Jons-
son, & Svensson, 2008), emotion suppression may be more con-
sequential for unhealthy eating behaviors among women compared
to men. This is consistent with findings suggesting that suppres-
sion may be linked to negative affective outcomes differently for
men than for women (Flynn, Hollenstein, & Mackey, 2010).
Further underscoring the need for moderating tests, many studies
examining suppression’s influence on unhealthy eating via sec-
ondary regulatory processes have focused exclusively on women
(Hofmann, Rauch, & Gawronski, 2007; Vohs & Heatherton,
2000).
Moreover, we examined whether partner effects for emotion
suppression were stronger for parents than children. Previous
research has shown that negative communication styles are more
likely to influence partner eating behaviors of parents, compared
with children, in parent– child dyads (Baiocchi-Wagner & Talley,
4 FERRER, GREEN, OH, HENNESSY, AND DWYER
Parent Parent
Emotion Negative
Suppression Affect
Adolescent Adolescent
Emotion Negative
Suppression Affect
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
2013). This suggests that maladaptive communication patterns are
more consequential for parents involved in the communication
than for children, at least with respect to eating behavior. Given
that evidence above suggests that suppression may be a negative
communication style, we predicted that partner linkages between
emotion suppression and eating behavior may be stronger for
adolescents’ suppression and parents’ eating behavior than the
converse.
Hypotheses
Our analyses were driven by the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: The emotion suppression of an actor will lead to
greater emotional eating and consumption of hedonic foods,
and to less fruit and vegetable consumption among the indi-
vidual suppressing emotions (i.e., actor effects).
Hypothesis 2: The emotion suppression of an actor will lead to
greater emotional eating and consumption of hedonic foods
and to lower fruit and vegetable consumption among the
dyadic partner of the individual suppressing emotion (i.e.,
partner effects).
We also conducted ancillary analyses to examine hypotheses
based on more preliminary evidence and not included in the
overarching conceptual framework. These were:
Moderation Hypothesis 1: The link between emotion suppres-
sion and outcomes—particularly emotional eating—may be
stronger among women than men.
Moderation Hypothesis 2: The link between one’s own sup-
pression and one’s partner’s outcomes (partner effects) may
be stronger for the adolescent-to-parent partner associations
than for the parent-to-adolescent partner associations.
Parent Hedonic
Food
Parent Consumption
Emotional
Eating
Parent F&V
Consumption
Adolescent
Hedonic Food
Consumption
Adolescent
Emotional
Eating
Adolescent
Junk
F&VF&V
Consumption
Method
Participants and Procedure
Data for this study were collected as part of the National Cancer
Institute’s Family Life, Activity, Sun, Health, and Eating
(FLASHE) study (http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/hbrb/flashe
.html), a Web based, cross-sectional study of parent–adolescent
dyads administered through Westat, Inc. and fielded between
April–October 2014. Adult participants were recruited to the study
through the Ipsos Consumer Opinion Panel. The sample was
selected using sample balancing methods (Oh et al., 2017; Westat,
2015), with sample distributions matching the U.S. population as
closely as possible on the following key demographic character-
istics: gender of the panel member, census division, household
income, household size, and race/ethnicity. A panel member was
eligible if he or she was at least 18 years of age and lived with at
least one child between the ages of 12 and 17 for at least 50% of
the time.
Participants in the present study were 1,556 parent–adolescent
dyads (N ⫽ 3,112) who completed all measures necessary for
analyses, described below. Mean age was 43.66 (SD ⫽ 7.91)
among parents and 14.45 (SD ⫽ 1.62) among adolescents. The
sample was 63% female (75% among parents and 50% among
adolescents). Full sociodemographic characteristics for the sample,
and stratified by parent/adolescent, are contained in Table 1.
Web based surveys were emailed to participants and completed
online. Full study methodology and item development are reported
elsewhere (Nebeling et al., 2017; Oh et al., 2017). The FLASHE
study was reviewed and approved by the US Government’s Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), NCIs Special Studies Insti-
tutional Review Board (SSIRB), and Westat’s Institutional Review
Board (IRB).
 EMOTION SUPPRESSION IN PARENT–ADOLESCENT DYADS 5

Table 1
Sociodemographic and Outcome Variables (n ⫽ 3,112)

Variable Full sample Parent Adolescent

Age 43.66 SD ⫽ 7.91 14.45 SD ⫽ 1.62

Body Mass Index 26.84 SD ⫽ 9.80 20.63 SD ⫽ 8.30
Percent female 2,022 (63%) 1,245 (75%) 777 (50%)
Education — —
Less than high school 21 (1%)
High school 276 (17%)
Some college 575 (35%)
College 779 (47%)
6th grade or less 103 (7%)
7th grade 245 (16%)
8th grade 268 (17%)
9th grade 255 (16%)
10th grade 303 (20%)
11th grade 251 (16%)
12th grade 78 (5%)
Marital status — —
Married 1,180 (72%)
Divorced 161 (10%)
Widowed 24 (1%)
Separated 29 (2%)
Never married 161 (10%)
Member of unmarried couple 91 (6%)
Race
American Indian/Alaskan 74 (2%) 29 (2%) 45 (1%)
Asian 136 (4%) 67 (4%) 69 (4%)
Black 651 (20%) 320 (19%) 331 (21%)
Pacific Islander/Hawaiian 14 (⬍1%) 4 (⬍1%) 10 (1%)
White 2,463 (77%) 1,275 (77%) 1,188 (77%)
Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino(a) 282 (9%) 122 (7%) 160 (10%)
Not Hispanic/Latino(a) 2,829 (91%) 1,521 (93%) 1,369 (90%)
Employment status — —
Employed 967 (59%)
Self-employed 124 (8%)
Out of work 1⫹ year 75 (5%)
Out of work for ⬍1 year 38 (2%)
Homemaker 399 (24%)
Student 19 (1%)
Retired 28 (2%)
Underweight 24 (1%) 70 (4%)
Normal weight 645 (35%) 1,120 (65%)
Overweight 545 (30%) 248 (14%)
Obese 558 (30%) 203 (12%)
Emotional eating 2.29 SD ⫽ 1.00 2.39 SD ⫽ .99 2.18 SD ⫽ .99
Hedonic food frequency 4.30 SD ⫽ 3.76 3.69 SD ⫽ 3.44 4.94 SD ⫽ 2.77
Fruit and vegetable frequency 2.98 SD ⫽ 2.23 3.11 SD ⫽ 2.18 2.84 SD ⫽ 3.98

Measures etary Screener (http://epi.grants.cancer.gov/nhanes/dietscreen/) and

All measures were similarly assessed in both parents and adoles-
cents. Emotion suppression was assessed with a four-item version of
the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (Gross & John, 2003). Items
included: “I keep my emotions to myself;” “When I am feeling
POSITIVE emotions, I am careful not to express them;” “I control my
emotions by NOT EXPRESSING THEM;” and “When I am feeling
NEGATIVE emotions, I make sure not to express them.” Items had
answer options: 1 ⫽ strongly disagree to 5 ⫽ strongly agree. Scale
reliability was acceptable, ␣ ⫽ .81 (parents ␣ ⫽ .81, adolescents ␣ ⫽
.80).
Frequency of key foods, beverages, and food groups were assessed
through a 27-item dietary screener. Items were adapted from the
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2009 –2010 Di-
the 2010 National Youth Physical Activity and Nutrition Survey (20
items; Brener et al., 2011; http://www.cdc.gov/healthyYouth/yrbs/pdf/
nypans/2010nypans_questionnaire.pdf), while 7 items were new
(Smith et al., 2017). This screener has been validated in comparison
to more in-depth food frequency questionnaires (Block, Gillespie,
Rosenbaum, & Jenson, 2000), objectively assessed diet records (An-
dersen, Johansson, & Solvoll, 2002), and intensive 24-hr recalls
(Nelson & Lytle, 2009). Additional details on the dietary screener are
available elsewhere (Smith et al., 2017).
The screener queried the frequency of foods eaten and bever-
ages consumed. For example, participants were asked: “DURING
THE PAST 7 DAYS, how many times did you eat FRUIT like
apples, bananas, melons, etc.?” Answer options were: 1: I did not
6 FERRER, GREEN, OH, HENNESSY, AND DWYER
eat [food] during the past 7 days; 2: 1–3 times in the past 7 days;
3: 4 – 6 times in the past 7 days; 4: 1 time per day; 5: 2 times per
day; and 6: 3 or more times per day. Original responses were
converted to daily frequencies (never ⫽ 0; 1 to 3 times during the
past 7 days ⫽ 0.29; 4 to 6 times during the past 7 days ⫽ 0.71; 1
time per day ⫽ 1; etc.).
Fruit and vegetable frequency was the sum of 3 items that
reported consumption of green salad, nonfried vegetables, and fruit
over the past 7 days. Hedonic food frequency was the sum of 8
items that reported consumption of sugary cereal, candy and choc-
olate, fried potatoes, chips, processed meat, cookies and cake,
frozen desserts, and fast food over the past 7 days.
Emotional eating was assessed with two items, which were
averaged, r ⫽ 0.76, p ⬍ .001. These two items were selected from
the emotional eating subscale of a larger eating-in-the-absence-of-
hunger-scale, based on factor loadings in a sample of adolescents
(Tanofsky-Kraff et al., 2008). These items were designed to assess
eating in response to anxiety and sadness (consistent with the
concept of emotional eating; Faith et al., 1997). Eating when sad
was assessed with a single item: “There are lots of reasons you
might start eating or continue eating when you aren’t hungry. How
often do YOU start or continue to eat when YOU’RE not hungry
because . . . you feel sad or depressed?” (1 ⫽ never to 5 ⫽ always).
Eating when anxious was assessed with a single item that em-
ployed the same stem, and ended: “. . . you feel anxious or ner-
vous?” (1 ⫽ never to 5 ⫽ always). For consistency in assessment
to facilitate dyadic analyses, the same scale was administered to
both adolescents and parents.
Control Variables
Race, parent marital status, and parent college education were
coded as dichotomous (i.e., dummy-coded), based on variability
on these variables in the sample. Race was coded as White (1)/
non-White (0). Parental marital status was coded as married (1)/
nonmarried (0). Parent education was coded as college educated
(1)/less than college educated (0). Gender was coded as female
(1)/male (0). Analyses also controlled for whether the participant
was a parent (0) or adolescent (1).
To calculate Body Mass Index (BMI), parents and adolescents
each self-reported their height (in feet and inches) and weight (in
pounds), which were converted to centimeters and kilograms for
calculations. BMI was chosen rather than BMI z-score for adoles-
cents to facilitate dyadic analyses. The Web based platform was
preprogrammed with soft system checks so that if a participant
entered a value outside of a biologically plausible range for height
or weight, a pop-up box appeared on the screen, which the respon-
dent had to confirm before being able to move to the next question.
Data were also screened to identify potential outliers (see Westat,
2015).
Analyses
Listwise deletion was used within each analysis for missing
data. All analyses controlled for standard sociodemographic fac-
tors at both the individual-level (each individual’s age, gender, and
race),1 as well as dyadic-level (parent education and marital sta-
tus). These covariates were selected because they are known to be
correlated with eating behaviors (e.g., Subar et al., 1995; Trudeau
et al., 1998), and as such it is appropriate to control for these to
reduce the potential for bias or confounding in analyses. Moreover,
controlling for these promotes consistency across FLASHE anal-
yses (e.g., Nebeling et al., 2017). Analyses also controlled for
BMI, given that overweight individuals are at risk for emotional
eating (Ganley, 1989; Macht, 2008; Van Strien, Engels, Van
Leeuwe, & Snoek, 2005).
We first examined each outcome independently, using actor-
partner interdependence models (APIM; Campbell & Kashy, 2002;
Cook & Kenny, 2005), which account for nonindependence among
dyads in the data and simultaneously test the hypothesized actor
and partner effects. We ran three separate sets of analyses (one for
each outcome) in SAS 9.3. First, APIM were performed with only
main effects predictors (parent and adolescent emotion suppres-
sion) and sociodemographic control variables. Then, two-way in-
teractions were introduced to examine whether actor and partner
effects differed by sex or dyad member (parent vs. adolescent), as
hypothesized. Finally, each model was run with a three-way in-
teraction, where actor suppression was crossed with actor gender
and actor parent/adolescent factor.
We further examined a mediation model with structural equa-
tion modeling techniques to examine whether these correlational
data showed direct associations between emotion suppression and
eating behaviors, and indirect effects of emotion suppression via
emotional eating, consistent with the theoretical framework artic-
ulated in Figure 1, using Mplus 5. Mediational paths for parent and
adolescent actor and partner effects were estimated separately.
Only mediational pathways between variables measured in the
dataset (noted as solid, rather than dotted, arrows) were examined.
Nonsignificant paths were trimmed from the final model, unless
they were components of a significant mediational pathway (i.e.,
where the main effect of a variable on an outcome was not
significant, but the indirect effect of the variable on the outcome,
via a mediator, was significant). Note that indirect paths were only
evaluated when conditions for mediation were met (i.e., when the
proposed mediator was associated with both the predictor and the
outcome). Bootstrapped confidence intervals (95% CI) for indirect
paths in the mediation model were also reported.
Results
Complete results for all APIM are located in Table 2.
Hypothesis 1: We predicted that an actor’s emotion suppres-
sion would be associated with all of the actor’s eating behav-
iors (actor effects). In support of this hypothesis, we found
emotion suppression was associated with more emotional eat-
ing (B ⫽ 0.21, p ⬍ .001); lower consumption frequency for
fruits and vegetables (B ⫽ ⫺0.11, p ⫽ .009); and greater
consumption frequency for hedonic foods (B ⫽ 0.31, p ⬍
.001; see Table 2).
Hypothesis 2: We predicted that an actor’s dyadic partner’s
emotion suppression would be associated with all actor eating
behaviors (partner effects). In support of this hypothesis, we
1
T The pattern and significance of results for all three models remained
unchanged when these standard sociodemographic factors were not in-
cluded as covariates.
 EMOTION SUPPRESSION IN PARENT–ADOLESCENT DYADS 7

Table 2
Mixed Model Regression (Actor-Partner Independence Model)

Hedonic food
Emotional eating F&V frequency frequency
(n ⫽ 3,097) (n ⫽ 2,853) (n ⫽ 2,885)
Predictor B p B p B p

Self age ⫺.01 .437 .01 .094 ⫺.01 .406

Self White .26 <.001 ⴚ.27 .024 ⴚ.63 .001
Parent married ⫺.01 .934 ⫺.01 .932 .20 .298
Parent college educated .04 .310 .43 <.001 ⫺.18 .306
Self adolescent ⫺.01 .948 .07 .751 1.06 .001
Self Body Mass Index .29 <.001 ⴚ.14 .024 .03 .809
Self female .40 <.001 .10 .250 ⫺.26 .069
Partner female ⫺.01 .805 ⫺.15 .088 ⫺.17 .223
Self emotion suppression .21 <.001 ⴚ.11 .009 .31 <.001
Partner emotion suppression .05 .003 ⴚ.12 .004 .20 .005
Partner Suppression ⫻ Adolescent ⴚ.13 .003 .12 .269 ⫺.02 .901
Self Suppression ⫻ Self Female .06 .131 .11 .256 .09 .669
Partner Suppression ⫻ Partner female ⫺.04 .246 .12 .212 ⫺.01 .976
Note. F&V ⫽ fruit and vegetable. Bold lettering is significant at p ⬍ .01.

found that partner’s emotion suppression was associated with
more emotional eating (B ⫽ 0.05, p ⫽ .003); lower consump-
tion frequency for fruits and vegetables (B ⫽ ⫺0.12, p ⫽
.004); and greater consumption frequency for hedonic food
(B ⫽ 0.20, p ⫽ .005; see Table 2).
Moderation Hypothesis 1
We predicted that emotion suppression would be more strongly
associated with eating behaviors for women than for men. Anal-
yses did not support this hypothesis; although women reported
greater emotional eating (B ⫽ 0.41, p ⬍ .001), the interaction
between own suppression and own sex was not significant in
predicting any outcome.
Moderation Hypothesis 2
We predicted that one’s adolescent’s emotion suppression
would be more strongly associated with eating behaviors among
parents (partner effects; compared with one’s parent’s emotion
suppression’s association with eating behaviors among adoles-
cents). Consistent with this hypothesis, we found a significant
interaction, whereby parents’ suppression was less strongly asso-
ciated with adolescents’ emotional eating than the reverse
(B ⫽ ⫺0.12, p ⫽ .003; see Table 2), and in fact, that there was not
a significant association between parents’ suppression and adoles-
cents’ emotional eating (B ⫽ 0.01, p ⫽ .720), where the converse
path was significant (B ⫽ 0.11, p ⬍ .001).
Mediation Model
As depicted in Figure 2, the direct pathways proposed in our
theoretical framework were largely supported for both actor and
partner effects. Analyses of actor pathways showed a direct
association of parent emotion suppression with parent emo-
tional eating (B ⫽ 0.17, p ⬍ .001), parent hedonic food con-
sumption (B ⫽ 0.08, p ⫽ .041), and parent fruit and vegetable
consumption (B ⫽ ⫺0.12, p ⫽ .049). Moreover, the indirect
associations of parent emotion suppression with parent hedonic
food (B ⫽ 0.04, 95% CI ⫽ 0.02, 0.05, p ⬍ .001) and fruit and
vegetable consumption (B ⫽ ⫺0.04, 95% CI ⫽ ⫺0.07, ⫺0.02,
p ⬍ .001), via parent, emotional eating, were significant. Simi-
larly, actor pathways for adolescents were largely supported; ad-
olescent suppression was associated with adolescent emotional
eating (B ⫽ 0.24, p ⬍ .001) and adolescent fruit and vegetable
consumption (B ⫽ ⫺0.15, p ⬍ .001), although the main associa-
tion between adolescent suppression and adolescent hedonic food
consumption was not significant. However, there was a significant
indirect association of adolescent suppression and adolescent he-
donic food consumption, via adolescent emotional eating (B ⫽
0.03, 95% CI ⫽ 0.01, 0.06, p ⫽ .004), as well as via parent
emotional eating (B ⫽ 0.01, 95% CI ⫽ 0.001, 0.02, p ⫽ .031).
Similarly, the association of adolescent suppression and adolescent
fruit and vegetable consumption, via adolescent emotional eating,
was also significant (B ⫽ ⫺0.02, 95% CI ⫽ ⫺0.05, 0.009, p ⫽
.045; see Table 3).
Analyses of partner pathways were also largely supported (see
Figure 2). Adolescent suppression was significantly associated
with parent emotional eating (B ⫽ 0.11, p ⬍ .001) and parent fruit
and vegetable consumption (B ⫽ ⫺0.20, p ⫽ .001), although the
main association of adolescent suppression and parent hedonic
food consumption was not significant. However, the association of
adolescent suppression with parent hedonic food consumption, via
parent emotional eating, was significant (B ⫽ 0.02, 95% CI ⫽
0.01, 0.04, p ⬍ .001). Similarly, the association of adolescent
suppression and parent fruit and vegetable consumption, via
parent emotional eating, was significant (B ⫽ ⫺0.03, 95%
CI ⫽ ⫺0.05, ⫺0.01, p ⫽ .004). There were no main associations
between parent emotion suppression and any adolescent outcome.
However, the indirect associations of parent suppression and ad-
olescent hedonic food consumption, via parent query for blank
marking emotional eating, were significant (B ⫽ 0.02, 95% CI ⫽
0.01, 0.04, p ⫽ .019). There were also positive associations be-
tween parents’ hedonic food consumption and their fruit and
vegetable consumption (and similarly positive pathways for ado-
lescents between hedonic food and fruit and vegetable consump-
tion; see Table 3).
8 FERRER, GREEN, OH, HENNESSY, AND DWYER

Figure 2. Structural equation model examining associations of parent and adolescent suppression with parent
and adolescent hedonic food and fruit and vegetable consumption (independently and via parent and adolescent
emotional eating). ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

Discussion
This study is the first known study to examine potential dyadic
consequences of emotion suppression among parent–adolescent
dyads, and one of few that focuses on suppression as a transactive
process in close relationships in a large national sample. These
data suggest that, despite its necessity in some social interactions,
emotion suppression is associated with negative behavioral con-
sequences in close relationships. As is the case in previously
unacquainted dyads (Butler et al., 2003, 2007) and among parents
of young children (Le & Impett, 2016), we found evidence con-
sistent with the hypothesis that suppression has negative conse-
quences for oneself and one’s partner.
Specifically, in the main analyses examining each outcome
separately, we found that both one’s own and one’s partner’s
emotion suppression was associated with more emotional eating,
greater consumption of hedonic foods, and less fruit and vegetable
consumption, even when controlling for a variety of sociodemo-
graphic factors and BMI. The relationships observed in these
cross-sectional findings are in parallel with laboratory experiments
demonstrating that induced negative emotions (Garg et al., 2007)

Table 3
Indirect Paths in Mediation Model

Parent hedonic food consumption Parent F&V consumption

(via) Parent (via) Adolescent (via) Parent (via) Adolescent
emotional eating emotional eating emotional eating emotional eating
Model predictors B p B p B p B p

Parent suppression .04 ⬍.001 — — ⫺.04 .001 — —

Adolescent suppression .03 ⬍.001 — — ⫺.03 .004 — —

Adolescent hedonic food consumption Adolescent F&V consumption

(via) Parent (via) Adolescent (via) Parent (via) Adolescent
emotional eating emotional eating emotional eating emotional eating
B p B p B p B p

Parent suppression .02 .019 — — ⫺.02 .080 — —

Adolescent suppression .01 .031 .03 .004 ⫺.01 .096 ⫺.03 .045
Note. F&V ⫽ fruit and vegetable.
 EMOTION SUPPRESSION IN PARENT–ADOLESCENT DYADS
and instructed emotion suppression (Evers et al., 2010; Taut et al.,
2012) lead to unhealthy eating behaviors, suggesting that naturally
occurring emotion suppression may be consequential in real-world
settings. Findings are also consistent with laboratory research
demonstrating that emotion suppression has implications for com-
munication within dyads (Butler et al., 2003).
The pathways in the mediation model were also generally con-
sistent with predictions. There were both direct and indirect actor
pathways among parent suppression and parent outcomes, and
actor pathways generally emerged for adolescents as well. Nota-
bly, the paths from hedonic food consumption to fruit and vege-
table consumption were positive, rather than negative, among both
parents and adolescents, suggesting that the mechanism underlying
the association between emotion suppression and reduced fruit and
vegetable consumption is not adjustment to accommodate greater
consumption of hedonic foods. Rather, it seems possible that
another unmeasured psychological mechanism may independently
underlie the association between suppression and fruit and vege-
table consumption. One possibility is social support. Suppression
can weaken relationships (Butler & Gross, 2004; Le & Impett,
2016; Richards et al., 2003) and be a barrier to forming close
relationships (Srivastava et al., 2009), leading to reduced social
support and weaker social connections (English et al., 2012; Labott
et al., 1991; Srivastava et al., 2009). Research in health behavior
change suggests that social support is critical to facilitate healthy
behaviors, including healthy eating behaviors such as fruit and
vegetable consumption (Anderson, Winett, & Wojcik, 2007; Perry
et al., 2004; Steptoe, Perkins-Porras, Rink, Hilton, & Cappuccio,
2004). Social support for eating behaviors may be particularly
important for children and adolescents (Neumark-Sztainer, Wall,
Perry, & Story, 2003). Thus, to the extent that suppression-induced
disruptions in social support extend to social support specifically
for eating behaviors, suppression could affect unhealthy eating
(among both the suppressor and their interaction partners) by
disrupting social support.
Partner pathways were also largely supported, with direct and
indirect effects of adolescent suppression on parent outcomes
emerging. However, and as predicted in moderation hypotheses,
partner pathways from parent suppression to adolescent outcomes
were less robust. Although the indirect association of parent sup-
pression and adolescent hedonic food consumption was signifi-
cant, there were no main associations between parent emotion
suppression and any adolescent outcome and no indirect associa-
tion between parent suppression and adolescent fruit and vegetable
consumption. These findings are consistent with another study
examining dyadic influences on eating behavior among family
dyads (Baiocchi-Wagner & Talley, 2013). One possible reason for
this finding is that parents are more invested in the outcomes of
emotional communication with their children than the reverse,
such that disruptions in this communication are more consequen-
tial for parents. Future research should address this possibility.
While much prior literature has focused on parental influence on
child behaviors, this finding highlights the bidirectional nature of
parent– child relationships and the role that adolescents may have
on parent eating behaviors.
Of note, we found significant support for partner pathways from
parent emotional eating to adolescent hedonic food consumption,
as well as indirect associations between parent suppression and
adolescent hedonic food consumption, via parent emotional eating.
9
Although these pathways were not explicitly predicted (and are at
odds with hypotheses that adolescent-parent partner pathways
would be stronger than parent–adolescent partner pathways), they
are consistent with the literature on social modeling and nutrition
behaviors in families. Specifically, research suggests that adoles-
cent children are more likely to eat healthy foods and avoid
unhealthy foods to the extent that their parents model this these
behaviors (Lopez et al., 2012; Rhee, 2008; Young et al., 2004), and
research suggests the same might be true for emotional eating
(Morrison, Power, Nicklas, & Hughes, 2013). Thus, it seems likely
that the indirect association of parent suppression and adolescent
hedonic food consumption, via parent emotional eating, could be a
result of the effects of parents modeling eating in the absence of
hunger, when they are anxious or sad.
Our moderation hypotheses regarding the strength of associa-
tions for women were largely not supported. Although women
were more likely to report emotional eating, suppression did not
interact with participant sex to predict any outcome. We also found
no evidence that one’s partner’s suppression had stronger links to
outcomes for female, compared with male, partners. Moreover,
there was no support for the notion that one’s partner’s suppression
would predict outcomes more when the actor was female. These
findings stand in contrast to exploratory predictions that suppres-
sion would be more strongly associated with outcomes for women
(and when women were suppressors), based on previous research
on sex differences in communication of emotion (Flynn et al.,
2010; Sonnby-Borgstrom et al., 2008), as well as sex differences in
emotion suppression (Benjamin & Kamin-Shaaltiel, 2004; Sobal,
Rauschenbach, & Frongillo, 1995).
However, our study involves examining parent–adolescent dy-
ads, where parents may have greater “power” or authority, in
contrast to prior research in romantic dyads. Given that suppres-
sion is most often engaged when individuals feel they are low in
the social hierarchy (Catterson et al., 2016), a more complex
analysis of these factors would necessitate examination of whether
dyadic associations between suppression and eating behaviors
depended on whether each particular dyad member was male/
female and adolescent/parent (see also Lloyd et al., 2014). This
study was not powered for such analyses, and such an examination
is beyond the scope of our inquiry. It is also possible that exam-
ining a more complex interplay that accounts for examination of
the makeup of the dyad would yield different findings; for exam-
ple, research has demonstrated that suppression may have different
cardiovascular effects among same- versus opposite sex dyads
(Mendes, Reis, Seery, & Blascovich, 2003).
The mechanisms underlying the general findings— both models
of the individual outcomes and structural modeling of the media-
tion model—remain undiscovered. Although results are consistent
with the psychological mechanism proposed in Figure 1 (i.e.,
negative affect), this putative mediator was not assessed in these
data. However, the emergence of both direct and indirect paths
from parent and adolescent suppression to unhealthy eating out-
comes supports the notion that there are multiple mechanisms and
exhibits the general pattern one would expect if negative affect
(and other potential mechanisms) undergirded the association be-
tween emotion suppression and unhealthy eating behaviors at a
dyadic level. However, it is also possible that other psychological
processes play a role. For example, cognitive load is associated
with disinhibited eating (Boon, Stroebe, Schut, & Ijntema, 2002;
10 FERRER, GREEN, OH, HENNESSY, AND DWYER
Cools et al., 1992; Macht, 2008; Ward & Mann, 2000), and
emotion suppression produces cognitive load (Gross, 2002; Rich-
ards & Gross, 1999, 2000); as such, cognitive load may be a
psychological mechanism underlying the association between
emotion suppression and unhealthy eating. Competing explana-
tions underscore the need for focused, laboratory experiments to
elucidate psychological processes linking emotion suppression to
unhealthy eating behaviors.
Regardless of mechanism, these findings have important impli-
cations, given that emotion suppression is relatively common in
social exchanges (Gross & John, 2003). Prior research on deter-
minants or predictors of eating behaviors have focused on envi-
ronmental (i.e., access to healthful foods) and social– cognitive
(i.e., self-efficacy for healthy eating, attitudes) determinants (Ras-
mussen et al., 2006). This study extends current literature to
consider the nature of dyadic relationships and the role of emotion
suppression on individuals and their partners to influence eating
behaviors. Note that these findings emerged even in the context of
statistical modeling that accounts for interdependence among the
dyadic data (important given that research suggests the use of
suppression is correlated in mother-adolescent dyads; Bariola,
Hughes, & Gullone, 2011).
The present study has several limitations. Most notably, data are
cross-sectional and preclude causal examination, including a full
examination of the conceptual framework presented in Figure 1.
However, note that analyses are consistent with causal hypotheses
generated by laboratory research (Butler & Gross, 2004; Evers et
al., 2010; Taut et al., 2012). Moreover, although analyses rely on
standard dietary screeners (National Cancer Institute, 2015; Subar
et al., 2015) that have been validated against food frequency
questionnaires (Block, Gillespie, Rosenbaum, & Jenson, 2000),
diet records (Andersen et al., 2002), and 24-hr recalls (Nelson &
Lytle, 2009), results are limited in that outcomes are self-reported.
Thus, future research could examine suppression in the context of
more intensively and/or objectively assessed eating behaviors,
especially if there is an interest in examination of dyadic relation-
ships and energy intake. Moreover, there was no measure of
closeness among parent–adolescent dyads, which could potentially
modify results of actor-partner interdependence models; future
research should examine whether results differ with the closeness
of a dyadic relationship. Finally, analyses did not take into account
possible differences in access to and availability of fruits and
vegetables (based on neighborhood environment or season of the
year). These limitations are offset by a number of strengths,
including the use of a national sample of parent–adolescent dyads
to extend knowledge of how emotion suppression influences dy-
adic regulatory processes (Butler et al., 2009) and implications for
maladaptive eating behavior as a secondary regulatory strategy
(Taut et al., 2012).
These findings present important hypotheses that can inform
future research. For example, although these analyses suggest that
emotion regulatory processes have dyadic implications among
parents and adolescents, they do not speak to whether such dyadic
processes are present among other types of dyads. For example, it
is possible that these findings would extend to marital relation-
ships, sibling relationships, and may even vary by the age of the
child (e.g., younger children; Hughes et al., 2011)—a possibility
that should be addressed in future research. Findings also support
the importance of the bidirectional interpersonal relationships
within families and home settings to influence diet behaviors.
These findings have implications for the ways in which eating
behavior is intervened upon, particularly with respect to emotion
(e.g., Telch, Agras, & Linehan, 2001; Wiser & Telch, 1999).
Although many interventions target more social– cognitive deter-
minants of eating behavior (Shaikh et al., 2008), these findings
suggest that emotional factors ostensibly unrelated to decisions
about eating (i.e., emotion suppression) can influence eating be-
havior and highlight the inherently social or interpersonal influ-
ences on eating behaviors. Moreover, these findings suggest that
even interventions that target emotion regulation may be more
effective if extended to focus not only on one’s own emotion
regulatory processes, but also those of close others (specifically
parents or adolescent children). Finally, these findings have im-
plications for the study of and intervention upon other unhealthy
behaviors that may be engaged as compensatory emotion regula-
tory strategies, including smoking (Fucito, Juliano, & Toll, 2010;
Szasz, Szentagotai, & Hofmann, 2012).
References
Adam, T. C., & Epel, E. S. (2007). Stress, eating and the reward system.
Physiology & Behavior, 91, 449 – 458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.physbeh.2007.04.011
Agras, W. S., & Telch, C. F. (1998). The effects of caloric deprivation and
negative affect on binge eating in obese binge-eating disordered women.
Behavior Therapy, 29, 491–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0005-
7894(98)80045-2
Andersen, L. F., Johansson, L., & Solvoll, K. (2002). Usefulness of a short
Food Frequency Questionnaire for screening of low intake of fruit and
vegetable and for intake of fat. European Journal of Public Health, 12,
208 –213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/12.3.208
Anderson, E. S., Winett, R. A., & Wojcik, J. R. (2007). Self-regulation,
self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and social support: Social cognitive
theory and nutrition behavior. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 34, 304 –
312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02874555
Armitage, C. J. (2015). Randomized test of a brief psychological interven-
tion to reduce and prevent emotional eating in a community sample.
Journal of Public Health, 37, 438 – 444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/
pubmed/fdv054
Arnow, B., Kenardy, J., & Agras, W. S. (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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1098-108X(199507)18:1⬍79::
AID-EAT2260180109⬎3.0.CO;2-V
Baiocchi-Wagner, E. A., & Talley, A. E. (2013). The role of family
communication in individual health attitudes and behaviors concerning
diet and physical activity. Health Communication, 28, 193–205. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2012.674911
Bariola, E., Gullone, E., & Hughes, E. K. (2011). Child and adolescent
emotion regulation: The role of parental emotion regulation and expres-
sion. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 14, 198 –212.
Benjamin, O., & Kamin-Shaaltiel, S. (2004). It’s not because I’m fat:
Perceived overweight and anger avoidance in marriage. Health Care for
Women International, 25, 853– 871. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
07399330490493403
Block, G., Gillespie, C., Rosenbaum, E. H., & Jenson, C. (2000). A rapid
food screener to assess fat and fruit and vegetable intake. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 18, 284 –288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0749-3797(00)00119-7
 EMOTION SUPPRESSION IN PARENT–ADOLESCENT DYADS
Boon, B., Stroebe, W., Schut, H., & Ijntema, R. (2002). Ironic processes in
the eating behaviour of restrained eaters. British Journal of Health
Psychology, 7, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/135910702169303
Brener, N. D., Merlo, C., Eaton, D., Kann, L., Park, S., & Blanck, H. M.
(2011). Beverage consumption among high school students—United
States, 2010. MMWR, 60, 778 –780.
Butler, E. A., Egloff, B., Wlhelm, F. H., Smith, N. C., Erickson, E. A., &
Gross, J. J. (2003). The social consequences of expressive suppression.
Emotion, 3, 48 – 67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.48
Butler, E. A., & Gross, J. J. (2004). Hiding feelings in social contexts: Out
of sight is not out of mind. In P. Philippot & R. S. Feldman (Eds.), The
regulation of emotion (pp. 101–126). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781410610898
Butler, E. A., & Gross, J. J. (2009). Emotion and emotion regulation:
Integrating individual and social levels of analysis. Emotion Review, 1,
86 – 87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1754073908099131
Butler, E. A., Lee, T. L., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Emotion regulation and
culture: Are the social consequences of emotion suppression culture-
specific? Emotion, 7, 30 – 48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7
.1.30
Butler, E. A., Young, V. J., & Randall, A. K. (2010). Suppressing to please,
eating to cope: The effect of overweight women’s emotion suppression
on romantic relationships and eating. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 29, 599 – 623. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2010.29.6.599
Campbell, L., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). Estimating actor, partner, and
interaction effects for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM: A
user–friendly guide. Personal Relationships, 9, 327–342. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00023
Carlson, S. M., & Wang, T. S. (2007). Inhibitory control and emotion
regulation in preschool children. Cognitive Development, 22, 489 –510.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.08.002
Catterson, A. D., Eldesouky, L., & John, O. P. (2016). An experience
sampling approach to emotion regulation: Situational suppression use
and social hierarchy. Journal of Research in Personality. Advance
online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.04.004
Cook, W. L., & Kenny, D. A. (2005). The actor–partner interdependence
model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. Inter-
national Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101–109. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1080/01650250444000405
Cools, J., Schotte, D. E., & McNally, R. J. (1992). Emotional arousal and
overeating in restrained eaters. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101,
348 –351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.101.2.348
Crockett, A. C., Myhre, S. K., & Rokke, P. D. (2015). Boredom proneness and
emotion regulation predict emotional eating. Journal of Health Psychology,
20, 670 – 680. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359105315573439
DeSteno, D., Gross, J. J., & Kubzansky, L. (2013). Affective science and
health: The importance of emotion and emotion regulation. Health
Psychology, 32, 474 – 486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030259
English, T., & John, O. P. (2013). Understanding the social effects of
emotion regulation: The mediating role of authenticity for individual
differences in suppression. Emotion, 13, 314.
English, T., John, O. P., Srivastava, S., & Gross, J. J. (2012). Emotion
regulation and peer-rated social functioning: A 4-year longitudinal
study. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 780 –784. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.09.006
Fairburn, C. G., & Cooper, P. J. (1982). Self-induced vomiting and bulimia
nervosa: An undetected problem. British Medical Journal, 284, 1153–
1155.
Evers, C., Marijn Stok, F., & de Ridder, D. T. D. (2010). Feeding your
feelings: Emotion regulation strategies and emotional eating. Personal-
ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 792– 804. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/0146167210371383
Faith, M. S., Allison, D. B., Geliebter, A., & Dalton, S. (1997). Emotional
eating and obesity: theoretical considerations and practical recommen-
11
dations. In D. Sharron (Ed.), Overweight and weight management: The
health professional’s guide to understanding and practice (pp. 439 –
465). New York, NY: An Aspen Publication.
Ferrer, R. A., Green, P. A., & Barrett, L. F. (2015). Affective science
perspectives on cancer control: Strategically crafting a mutually bene-
ficial research agenda. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 328 –
345.
Fisher, E. B., Walker, E. A., Bostrom, A., Fischhoff, B., Haire-Joshu, D.,
& Johnson, S. B. (2002). Behavioral science research in the prevention
of diabetes: Status and opportunities. Diabetes Care, 25, 599 – 606.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/diacare.25.3.599
Flynn, J. J., Hollenstein, T., & Mackey, A. (2010). The effect of suppress-
ing and not accepting emotions on depressive symptoms: Is suppression
different for men and women? Personality and Individual Differences,
49, 582–586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.022
Ford, E. S., Zhao, G., Tsai, J., & Li, C. (2011). Low-risk lifestyle behaviors
and all-cause mortality: Findings from the National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey III Mortality Study. American Journal of Public
Health, 101, 1922–1929.
Fucito, L. M., Juliano, L. M., & Toll, B. A. (2010). Cognitive reappraisal
and expressive suppression emotion regulation strategies in cigarette
smokers. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 12, 1156 –1161. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1093/ntr/ntq146
Gagnon-Girouard, M. P., Bégin, C., Provencher, V., Tremblay, A., Boivin,
S., & Lemieux, S. (2009). Can we apply the dual-pathway model of
overeating to a population of weight-preoccupied overweight women?
International Journal of Eating Disorders, 42, 244 –252. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1002/eat.20614
Ganley, R. M. (1989). Emotion and eating in obesity: A review of the
literature. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 8, 343–361. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1002/1098-108X(198905)8:3⬍343::AID-EAT2260080310⬎3
.0.CO;2-C
Garg, N., Wansink, B., & Inman, J. J. (2007). The influence of incidental
affect on consumers’ food intake. Journal of Marketing, 71, 194 –206.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.1.194
Gilboa-Schechtman, E., Avnon, L., Zubery, E., & Jeczmien, P. (2006).
Emotional processing in eating disorders: Specific impairment or gen-
eral distress related deficiency? Depression and Anxiety, 23, 331–339.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/da.20163
Greeno, C. G., & Wing, R. R. (1994). Stress-induced eating. Psychological
Bulletin, 115, 444 – 464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.3.444
Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation:
Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 224 –237. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.224
Gross, J. J. (1999). Emotion regulation: Past, present, future. Cognition and
Emotion, 13, 551–573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026999399379186
Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social
consequences. Psychophysiology, 39, 281–291. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1017/S0048577201393198
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion
regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-
being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348 –362.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1993). Emotional suppression: Physiol-
ogy, self-report, and expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 64, 970 –986. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514
.64.6.970
Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Hiding feelings: The acute effects
of inhibiting negative and positive emotion. Journal of Abnormal Psy-
chology, 106, 95–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.106.1.95
Haedt-Matt, A. A., Keel, P. K., Racine, S. E., Burt, S. A., Hu, J. Y., Boker,
S., . . . Klump, K. L. (2014). Do emotional eating urges regulate affect?
Concurrent and prospective associations and implications for risk mod-
12 FERRER, GREEN, OH, HENNESSY, AND DWYER
els of binge eating. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 47,
874 – 877. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.22247
Haga, S. M., Kraft, P., & Corby, E. K. (2009). Emotion regulation:
Antecedents and well-being outcomes of cognitive reappraisal and ex-
pressive suppression in cross-cultural samples. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 10, 271–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-007-9080-3
Harris, C. R. (2001). Cardiovascular responses of embarrassment and
effects of emotional suppression in a social setting. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 81, 886 – 897. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.81.5.886
Heatherton, T. F., & Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Binge eating as escape from
self-awareness. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 86 –108. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.86
Heatherton, T. F., Herman, C. P., & Polivy, J. (1991). Effects of physical
threat and ego threat on eating behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 60, 138 –143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514
.60.1.138
Hofmann, W., Rauch, W., & Gawronski, B. (2007). And deplete us not into
temptation: Automatic attitudes, dietary restraint, and self-regulatory
resources as determinants of eating behavior. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 43, 497–504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006
.05.004
Hughes, S. O., Power, T. G., Papaioannou, M. A., Cross, M. B., Nicklas,
T. A., Hall, S. K., & Shewchuk, R. M. (2011). Emotional climate,
feeding practices, and feeding styles: An observational analysis of the
dinner meal in Head Start families. The International Journal of Behav-
ioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 8, 60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/
1479-5868-8-60
John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2004). Healthy and unhealthy emotion regu-
lation: Personality processes, individual differences, and life span de-
velopment. Journal of Personality, 72, 1301–1334. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00298.x
Katterman, S. N., Kleinman, B. M., Hood, M. M., Nackers, L. M., &
Corsica, J. A. (2014). Mindfulness meditation as an intervention for
binge eating, emotional eating, and weight loss: A systematic review.
Eating Behaviors, 15, 197–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2014
.01.005
Kennedy-Moore, E., & Watson, J. C. (2001). How and when does emo-
tional expression help? Review of General Psychology, 5, 187–212.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.3.187
Khaw, K.-T., Wareham, N., Bingham, S., Welch, A., Luben, R., & Day, N.
(2008). Combined impact of health behaviours and mortality in men and
women: The EPIC-Norfolk Prospective Population Study. PLoS Medi-
cine, 5, e12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050012
Klein, W. M., Bloch, M., Hesse, B. W., McDonald, P. G., Nebeling, L.,
O’Connell, M. E., . . . Tesauro, G. (2014). Behavioral research in cancer
prevention and control: A look to the future. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 46, 303–311.
Labott, S. M., Martin, R. B., Eason, P. S., & Berkey, E. Y. (1991). Social
reactions to the expression of emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 5,
397– 417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699939108411050
Laitinen, J., Ek, E., & Sovio, U. (2002). Stress-related eating and drinking
behavior and body mass index and predictors of this behavior. Preven-
tive Medicine, 34, 29 –39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/pmed.2001.0948
Larson, N. I., Neumark-Sztainer, D. R., Harnack, L. J., Wall, M. M., Story,
M. T., & Eisenberg, M. E. (2008). Fruit and vegetable intake correlates
during the transition to young adulthood. American Journal of Preven-
tive Medicine, 35, 33–37. e3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.03
.019
Le, B. M., & Impett, E. A. (2016). The costs of suppressing negative
emotions and amplifying positive emotions during parental caregiving.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 323–336. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/0146167216629122
Lehman, A. K., & Rodin, J. (1989). Styles of self-nurturance and disor-
dered eating. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 117–
122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.57.1.117
Leith, K. P., & Baumeister, R. F. (1996). Why do bad moods increase
self-defeating behavior? Emotion, risk taking, and self-regulation. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1250 –1267. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1250
Lloyd, A. B., Lubans, D. R., Plotnikoff, R. C., Collins, C. E., & Morgan,
P. J. (2014). Maternal and paternal parenting practices and their influ-
ence on children’s adiposity, screen-time, diet and physical activity.
Appetite, 79, 149 –157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.010
Lopez, N. V., Ayala, G. X., Corder, K., Eisenberg, C. M., Zive, M. M.,
Wood, C., & Elder, J. P. (2012). Parent support and parent-mediated
behaviors are associated with children’s sugary beverage consumption.
Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 112, 541–547.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2011.11.013
Macht, M. (2008). How emotions affect eating: A five-way model. Appe-
tite, 50, 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.07.002
Macht, M., Haupt, C., & Ellgring, H. (2005). The perceived function of
eating is changed during examination stress: A field study. Eating
Behaviors, 6, 109 –112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2004.09.001
Macht, M., & Mueller, J. (2007). Immediate effects of chocolate on
experimentally induced mood states. Appetite, 49, 667– 674. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.05.004
Macht, M., & Simons, G. (2000). Emotions and eating in everyday life.
Appetite, 35, 65–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/appe.2000.0325
Mendes, W. B., Reis, H. T., Seery, M. D., & Blascovich, J. (2003).
Cardiovascular correlates of emotional expression and suppression: Do
content and gender context matter? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84, 771–792. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.771
Moore, S. A., Zoellner, L. A., & Mollenholt, N. (2008). Are expressive
suppression and cognitive reappraisal associated with stress-related
symptoms? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46, 993–1000. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2008.05.001
Morrison, H., Power, T. G., Nicklas, T., & Hughes, S. O. (2013). Exploring
the effects of maternal eating patterns on maternal feeding and child
eating. Appetite, 63, 77– 83.
National Cancer Institute. (2015). Screeners at a glance. Dietary Assess-
ment Primer. Retrieved from http://dietassessmentprimer.cancer.gov/
profiles/screeners/
Nebeling, L. C., Hennessey, E. M., Oh, A. Y., Dwyer, L. A., Patrick, H.,
Blanck, H. M., . . . Yaroch, A. L. (in press). The FLASHE Study: Survey
development, dyadic perspectives, and participant characteristics. Amer-
ican Journal of Preventive Medicine.
Nelson, M. C., & Lytle, L. A. (2009). Development and evaluation of a
brief screener to estimate fast-food and beverage consumption among
adolescents. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109, 730 –
734. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2008.12.027
Neumark-Sztainer, D., Wall, M., Perry, C., & Story, M. (2003). Correlates
of fruit and vegetable intake among adolescents. Findings from Project
EAT. Preventive Medicine, 37, 198 –208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0091-7435(03)00114-2
Nguyen-Michel, S. T., Unger, J. B., & Spruijt-Metz, D. (2007). Dietary
correlates of emotional eating in adolescence. Appetite, 49, 494 – 499.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.03.005
Oh, A. Y., Davis, T., Dwyer, L. A., Hennessy, E., Li, T., Yaroch, A. L., &
Nebeling, L. C. (in press). Recruitment, enrollment, and response of
parent-adolescent dyads in the FLASHE study. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine.
Oliver, G., Wardle, J., & Gibson, E. L. (2000). Stress and food choice: A
laboratory study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 62, 853– 865. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1097/00006842-200011000-00016
Pearson, T. A., Blair, S. N., Daniels, S. R., Eckel, R. H., Fair, J. M.,
Fortmann, S. P., . . . Taubert, K. A. (2002). AHA guidelines for primary
 EMOTION SUPPRESSION IN PARENT–ADOLESCENT DYADS
prevention of cardiovascular disease and stroke: 2002 update. Circula-
tion, 106, 388 –391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.0000020190
.45892.75
Perry, C. L., Bishop, D. B., Taylor, G. L., Davis, M., Story, M., Gray,
C., . . . Harnack, L. (2004). A randomized school trial of environmental
strategies to encourage fruit and vegetable consumption among children.
Health Education & Behavior, 31, 65–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1090198103255530
Rasmussen, M., Krølner, R., Klepp, K. I., Lytle, L., Brug, J., Bere, E., &
Due, P. (2006). Determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption among
children and adolescents: A review of the literature. Part I: Quantitative
studies. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical
Activity, 3, 22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-3-22
Richards, J. M., Butler, E. A., & Gross, J. J. (2003). Emotion regulation in
romantic relationships: The cognitive consequences of concealing feel-
ings. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 599 – 620. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/02654075030205002
Richards, J. M., & Gross, J. J. (1999). Composure at any cost? The
cognitive consequences of emotion suppression. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1033–1044. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
01461672992511010
Richards, J. M., & Gross, J. J. (2000). Emotion regulation and memory:
The cognitive costs of keeping one’s cool. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 79, 410 – 424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514
.79.3.410
Rhee, K. (2008). Childhood overweight and the relationship between
parent behaviors, parenting style, and family functioning. The ANNALS
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 615, 11–37.
Rhoades, B. L., Greenberg, M. T., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2009). The
contribution of inhibitory control to preschoolers’ social– emotional
competence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 310 –
320.
Seghers, J., & Rutten, C. (2010). Clustering of multiple lifestyle behaviours
and its relationship with weight status and cardiorespiratory fitness in a
sample of Flemish 11- to 12-year-olds. Public Health Nutrition, 13,
1838 –1846. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1368980010000418
Shaikh, A. R., Yaroch, A. L., Nebeling, L., Yeh, M.-C., & Resnicow, K.
(2008). Psychosocial predictors of fruit and vegetable consumption in
adults a review of the literature. American Journal of Preventive Med-
icine, 34, 535–543. e11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.12.028
Smith, T. M., Calloway, E. E., Pinard, C. A., Hennessy, E., Oh, A. Y.,
Nebeling, L. C., & Yaroch, A. L. (in press). Using secondary 24-hour
dietary recall data to estimate daily dietary factor intake from the Family
Life, Activity, Sun, Health, and Eating (FLASHE) Study dietary
screener. American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
Sobal, J., Rauschenbach, B. S., & Frongillo, E. A. (1995). Obesity and
marital quality. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 746 –764. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/019251395016006004
Sonnby-Borgström, M., Jönsson, P., & Svensson, O. (2008). Gender dif-
ferences in facial imitation and verbally reported emotional contagion
from spontaneous to emotionally regulated processing levels. Scandina-
vian Journal of Psychology, 49, 111–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
.1467-9450.2008.00626.x
Spoor, S. T. P., Bekker, M. H. J., Van Strien, T., & van Heck, G. L. (2007).
Relations between negative affect, coping, and emotional eating. Appe-
tite, 48, 368 –376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2006.10.005
Srivastava, S., Tamir, M., McGonigal, K. M., John, O. P., & Gross, J. J.
(2009). The social costs of emotional suppression: A prospective study
of the transition to college. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 96, 883– 897. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014755
Stefanek, M. E., Andrykowski, M. A., Lerman, C., Manne, S., & Glanz, K.,
on behalf of the AACR Behavioral Sciences Task Force. (2009). Be-
havioral oncology and the war on Cancer: Partnering with Biomedicine.
13
Cancer Research, 69, 7151–7156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472
.can-08-4005
Steptoe, A., Perkins-Porras, L., Rink, E., Hilton, S., & Cappuccio, F. P.
(2004). Psychological and social predictors of changes in fruit and
vegetable consumption over 12 months following behavioral and nutri-
tion education counseling. Health Psychology, 23, 574 –581. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.23.6.574
Subar, A. F., Freedman, L. S., Tooze, J. A., Kirkpatrick, S. I., Boushey, C.,
Neuhouser, M. L., . . . Krebs-Smith, S. M. (2015). Addressing current
criticism regarding the value of self-report dietary data. The Journal of
Nutrition, 145, 2639 –2645. http://dx.doi.org/10.3945/jn.115.219634
Subar, A. F., Heimendinger, J., Patterson, B. H., Krebs-Smith, S. M.,
Pivonka, E., & Kessler, R. (1995). Fruit and vegetable intake in the
United States: The baseline survey of the Five A Day for Better Health
Program. American Journal of Health Promotion, 9, 352–360. http://dx
.doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-9.5.352
Szasz, P. L., Szentagotai, A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Effects of emotion
regulation strategies on smoking craving, attentional bias, and task
persistence. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 50, 333–340. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2012.02.010
Tackman, A. M., & Srivastava, S. (2016). Social responses to expressive
suppression: The role of personality judgments. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 110, 574 –591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
pspp0000053
Tanofsky, M. B., Wilfley, D. E., Spurrell, E. B., Welch, R., & Brownell,
K. D. (1997). Comparison of men and women with binge eating disor-
der. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 21, 49 –54. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-108X(199701)21:1⬍49::AID-EAT6⬎3.0.CO;
2-3
Tanofsky-Kraff, M., Ranzenhofer, L. M., Yanovski, S. Z., Schvey, N. A.,
Faith, M., Gustafson, J., & Yanovski, J. A. (2008). Psychometric prop-
erties of a new questionnaire to assess eating in the absence of hunger in
children and adolescents. Appetite, 51, 148 –155. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1016/j.appet.2008.01.001
Taut, D., Renner, B., & Baban, A. (2012). Reappraise the situation but
express your emotions: Impact of emotion regulation strategies on ad
libitum food intake. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 359. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00359
Tavris, C. (1984). On the wisdom of counting to ten: Personal and social
dangers of anger expression. Review of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 5, 170 –191.
Telch, C. F., Agras, W. S., & Linehan, M. M. (2001). Dialectical behavior
therapy for binge eating disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 69, 1061–1065. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.69.6
.1061
Tomiyama, A. J., Dallman, M. F., & Epel, E. S. (2011). Comfort food is
comforting to those most stressed: Evidence of the chronic stress re-
sponse network in high stress women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 36,
1513–1519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2011.04.005
Trudeau, E., Kristal, A. R., Li, S., & Patterson, R. E. (1998). Demographic
and psychosocial predictors of fruit and vegetable intakes differ: Impli-
cations for dietary interventions. Journal of the American Dietetic As-
sociation, 98, 1412–1417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-8223
(98)00319-8
Van Strien, T., Engels, R. C., Van Leeuwe, J., & Snoek, H. M. (2005). The
Stice model of overeating: Tests in clinical and non-clinical samples.
Appetite, 45, 205–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2005.08.004
Van Strien, T., Frijters, J. E. R., Bergers, G. P. A., & Defares, P. B. (1986).
The Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire (DEBQ) for assessment of
restrained, emotional, and external eating behavior. International Jour-
nal of Eating Disorders, 5, 295–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1098-
108X(198602)5:2⬍295::AID-EAT2260050209⬎3.0.CO;2-T
14 FERRER, GREEN, OH, HENNESSY, AND DWYER
Vohs, K. D., & Heatherton, T. F. (2000). Self-regulatory failure: A
resource-depletion approach. Psychological Science, 11, 249 –254.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00250
Ward, A., & Mann, T. (2000). Don’t mind if I do: Disinhibited eating under
cognitive load. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 753–
763. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.753
Wegner, D. M., Schneider, D. J., Carter, S. R., III, & White, T. L. (1987).
Paradoxical effects of thought suppression. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 53, 5–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53
.1.5
Westat, Inc. (2015). Family Life, Activity, Sun, Health, and Eating (FLASHE)
Study Methodology Report. Rockville, MD: National Cancer Institute.
Wiser, S., & Telch, C. F. (1999). Dialectical behavior therapy for Binge-
Eating Disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 755–768. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(199906)55:6⬍755::AID-JCLP8⬎3
.0.CO;2-R
Young, E. M., Fors, S. W., & Hayes, D. M. (2004). Associations between
perceived parent behaviors and middle school student fruit and vegetable
consumption. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 36, 2–12.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60122-X
Received April 21, 2016
Revision received January 13, 2017
Accepted January 16, 2017 䡲