573439

research-article2015
HPQ0010.1177/1359105315573439Journal of Health PsychologyCrockett et al.

Article

Journal of Health Psychology

Boredom proneness and emotion

2015, Vol. 20(5) 670­–680
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
regulation predict emotional eating sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1359105315573439
hpq.sagepub.com

Amanda C Crockett, Samantha K Myhre and

Paul D Rokke

Abstract
Emotional eating is considered a risk factor for eating disorders and an important contributor to obesity
and its associated health problems. It has been suggested that boredom may be an important contributor to
overeating, but has received relatively little attention. A sample of 552 college students was surveyed. Linear
regression analyses found that proneness to boredom and difficulties in emotion regulation simultaneously
predicted inappropriate eating behavior, including eating in response to boredom, other negative emotions,
and external cues. The unique contributions of these variables to emotional eating were discussed. These
findings help to further identify which individuals could be at risk for emotional eating and potentially for
unhealthy weight gain.

Keywords
bored eating, boredom proneness, emotional eating, emotion regulation

The number of people in the world, and in the
United States, who are overweight is of concern
because of the significant impact obesity has on
health and the associated medical costs (Ogden
et al., 2012; World Health Organization (WHO),
2013). While a variety of cultural and environ-
mental issues clearly contribute to this problem,
psychological factors are also important. In par-
ticular, the role of negative emotions has been
gaining interest (Spoor et al., 2007). Emotional
eating, or distress induced eating, has been con-
ceptualized as overeating in response to nega-
tive emotions (Arnow et al., 1995; Van Strien
and Ouwens, 2007). It has been suggested that
negative emotions prompt binge eating epi-
sodes (Stice, 2001; Stice et al., 2002) as well as
encourage overeating in vulnerable individuals
(Van Strien et al., 2005).
There may be several reasons why negative
emotions contribute to inappropriate eating. Adam
and Epel (2007) suggest that interactions between
the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis
and the reward circuitry of the brain may mediate
the relationship between stress and eating by
simultaneously lessening the stress response and
motivating the intake of high caloric foods.
Heatherton and Baumeister (1991) proposed an
escape model in which the need to avoid negative
self-awareness results in behavioral disinhibition
and overeating. Likewise, difficulties in managing
negative affect could lead to alternative and
inappropriate ways of coping, like overeating
(Schachter et al., 1968; Spoor et al., 2007).
North Dakota State University, USA
Corresponding author:
Paul D Rokke, Department of Psychology, North Dakota
State University, Dept. 2765, PO Box 6050, Fargo, ND
58108-6050, USA.
Email: Paul.Rokke@ndsu.edu
Crockett et al.
The negative emotions most commonly
investigated in the eating literature include
depression, anxiety, and anger (Nguyen-
Rodriguez et al., 2009; Schneider et al., 2010).
Another negative emotion that has not been
often examined, but may also be an important
contributor to emotional eating, is boredom. As
early as 1977, it was experimentally demon-
strated that boredom led to increased consump-
tion of food for both healthy and obese
participants (Abramson and Stinson, 1977).
However, it has only been recently that research-
ers have taken a renewed interest in the role of
boredom. Walfish and Brown (2009) found that
bariatric patients endorsed eating more fre-
quently when bored than when experiencing
other negative emotions and suggested that
interventions aimed at overcoming boredom
may be critical to post-surgical success. Others
have since conducted psychometric studies on
questionnaires to which items related to eating
when bored were added (Koball et al., 2012;
Perpiñá et al., 2011). In both cases, eating in
response to boredom was endorsed with enough
frequency to warrant further investigation.
In the present study, we would like to address
two primary issues that have been raised by this
literature. First, very few studies have looked
specifically at boredom or boredom in relation
to other negative emotions (Macht, 2008). It has
been suggested that boredom is an emotional
state that is distinct from other negative emo-
tions (Goldberg et al., 2011). Thus, it is impor-
tant to determine whether eating in response to
negative emotions is a generalized phenomenon
or whether boredom has unique influences on
eating behavior.
Second, since negative emotions often result
in a loss of appetite (Adam and Epel, 2007) and
there is variability in the likelihood of eating in
response to negative emotions, researchers have
also begun to investigate individual differences
that may moderate the relationship between
emotions and overeating (Canetti et al., 2002).
Among the first personality measures to be
examined, neuroticism has been associated
with eating problems (Heaven et al., 2001;
671
Steptoe et al., 1995). In addition, alexithymia,
the inability to recognize and identify emotional
states, has been associated with disordered eat-
ing (Quinton and Wagner, 2005) and emotional
eating (Larsen et al., 2006) and was shown to
moderate the relationship between distress and
overeating (Van Strien and Ouwens, 2007).
Using maladaptive strategies to cope with nega-
tive emotions has also been determined to
increase food intake (Evers et al., 2010).
Thus, we surveyed undergraduate college
students to assess their self-reported eating hab-
its, their likelihood to experience negative emo-
tion in the form of boredom, and difficulties in
emotion regulation. The survey included scales
of eating in response to boredom, emotional
eating, eating in response to external cues, and
restrained eating. It was predicted that a ten-
dency to experience boredom coupled with dif-
ficulties in regulating negative emotions would
lead to more emotional eating. We hypothesized
that if boredom is unique in its experience and
effects, then proneness to boredom would be
predictive of eating when bored, but may not be
as strongly associated with eating in response to
other negative emotions. It was hypothesized
that difficulties in emotion regulation would
moderate the relationship between proneness to
boredom and eating in response to boredom.
Others have wondered whether eating in
response to boredom simply reflects an over-
sensitivity to external cues (Koball et al., 2012;
Wardle et al., 2001). Since boredom is inher-
ently about a state without engaged attention
and in need of something to do, we also thought
that proneness to boredom would predict eating
in response to external cues, although we did
not expect boredom to be associated with
restrained eating. The measurement of the like-
lihood to experience boredom, along with
measures of emotion regulation and different
eating problems, provides us with an opportu-
nity to investigate whether proneness to bore-
dom is a unique precipitant to bored eating and
to begin to unravel the relationship between
boredom, emotion regulation, and the various
problems of eating behavior.
672
Method
Participants
The participants were 552 undergraduate stu-
dents (334 women) at a Midwestern state univer-
sity who were enrolled in a psychology course.
They participated in exchange for course credit.
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 46 years,
with an average age of 19.25 years (standard
deviation (SD) = 2.15 years). The majority of the
sample was White (82.6%), with 2.7 percent
reporting to be Black, 2.7 percent Asian/Pacific
Islander, 2.5 percent Hispanic, and 9.4 percent
reporting as other. Four percent of the sample
consisted of international students and 5.6 per-
cent reported that English was a second lan-
guage. The average height of participants was
67.79 in (SD = 5.57 in). They weighed an average
of 156.51 pounds (SD = 31.48 pounds), for an
average body mass index (BMI) of 23.67
(SD = 3.80, range = 17–46).
Measures
Demographics. Participants reported their age,
sex, weight, height, and ethnicity. They were
also asked whether they were an international
student and whether English was their first lan-
guage. BMI was found using height in inches
and weight in pounds. BMI was calculated
using the Centers for Disease Control and Pre-
vention (CDC; 2011) approved formula of
weight divided by height squared and then mul-
tiplied by 703.
International Physical Activity Questionnaire. The
International Physical Activity Questionnaire
(IPAQ) short form was administered in a self-
report format and measured the intensity and
amount of physical activity over the previous
7 days (Craig et al., 2003). We included this
measure because of the potential for activity lev-
els to be associated with BMI and with boredom
proneness. However, we did not have strong pre-
dictions about the relationships among these
variables and viewed the analyses which
included them as exploratory in nature. The
IPAQ consists of 7 items. Respondents indicate
Journal of Health Psychology 20(5)
the amount of time spent engaged in activities of
low, moderate, or vigorous levels of intensity
across leisure, domestic, work, and transport-
related domains. Each type of activity is weighted
by its energy requirements. A metabolic equiva-
lent (MET) rate score was calculated by multi-
plying the energy equivalent by the minutes of
activity on an average day and then again by the
number of days on which the activity was per-
formed. The sum of the three activity levels
resulted in a total MET score. Craig and col-
leagues found the short form to have a test–retest
reliability of .76 and concurrent validity of .67.
Boredom Proneness Scale. The Boredom Prone-
ness Scale (BPS) was used to measure individual
differences in the experience of boredom. The
scale includes 28 true and false questions (Farmer
and Sundberg, 1986). Examples include “Time
always seems to be passing slowly,” “I often find
myself at ‘loose ends’, not knowing what else to
do,” and “Much of the time I just sit around
doing nothing.” Scores range from 0 to 28, with
higher scores reflecting a greater likelihood of
experiencing boredom. The scale has satisfac-
tory levels of internal consistency, α = .79, and
test–retest reliability, R = .83 (Farmer and Sund-
berg, 1986).
Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. The Dif-
ficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS;
Gratz and Roemer, 2004) measures how well
people recognize and regulate their emotions.
Responses to the 41-item questionnaire are on a
5-point scale from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost
always). Items representing six subscales cover
the content of nonacceptance of emotional
responses (“When I’m upset, I become angry
with myself for feeling that way”), difficulties
engaging in goal-directed behavior (“When I’m
upset, I have difficulty getting work done”),
impulse control difficulties (“When I’m upset, I
lose control over my behaviors”), lack of emo-
tional awareness (“I’m attentive to my feelings,”
reverse scored), limited access to emotion regu-
lation strategies (“When I’m upset, I believe that
wallowing in it is all I can do”), and lack of emo-
tional clarity (“I have difficulty making sense
Crockett et al.
out of my feelings”). Responses to all items
were summed to form a total score. Higher
scores indicate greater difficulty in regulating
emotion. The DERS has high internal consist-
ency of α = .93 (Gratz and Roemer, 2004).
Revised Emotional Eating Scale. The original
Emotional Eating Scale (EES) was a self-report
measure composed of 25 items that measured the
individual’s desire to eat when feeling certain
emotions, for example, when resentful, shaky,
blue, uneasy, and irritated (Arnow et al., 1995).
Participants rate their desire to eat using a 5-point
scale—1 (indicating no desire to eat) and 5 (an
overwhelming urge to eat). The original EES did
not use boredom as an emotion contributing to
eating. In the revised scale, six boredom items
were added (Koball et al., 2012). Examples
include, “Blah, nothing to do, unstimulated,
unexcited, restless, and disinterested.” The inter-
nal consistency for the new EES total scale is
α = .93. Koball and colleagues reported three fac-
tors, consisting of depression, boredom, and
anxiety/anger. Thus, a total score and three sub-
scales can be scored. Because we were interested
in examining bored eating separately from emo-
tional eating more generally, for the purposes of
this study, two scores were derived from the 31
items. They represented the average strength of
desire to eat when experiencing boredom (EES-
bored) and the sum of the subscales for depres-
sion and anxiety/anger (EESother).
Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire. The Dutch
Eating Behavior Questionnaire (DEBQ; Van
Strien et al., 1986) measures restrained eating
(e.g. “Do you deliberately eat less in order not
to become heavier?”), eating in response to
external cues (e.g. “If you walk past the baker
do you have the desire to buy something deli-
cious?”), and emotional eating (e.g. “Do you
have a desire to eat when you are depressed or
discouraged?”). Each of the 33 items are rated
on a 5-point scale from 1 (never) to 5 (very
often). The average ratings of the items on each
scale were calculated. Higher scores indicate a
higher frequency of restrained, external, or
emotional eating. The complete scale has been
673
found to be reliable with a Cronbach’s alpha of
.79 (Larsen et al., 2006).
Procedure
Participants volunteered and responded using
an online survey program. They were first
presented with an informed consent form. The
questionnaires were completed in the follow-
ing order: demographic questions, IPAQ,
DEBQ, Revised EES, BPS, and the DERS.
(Between the demographic questions and the
IPAQ, participants were also presented with
eight short sentences describing an emotional
situation. They were asked to describe their
most likely responses to those situations. As
these open-ended questions did not provide
any useful data, further details were not
included here.) The study did not have a time
limit, but most participants concluded within
25 minutes.
Results
The distribution of scores on all primary meas-
ures was examined to ensure that the recorded
data fell within the range and normal parame-
ters of each instrument. There were no responses
that were excluded on this basis. A correlational
analysis was conducted as an initial evaluation
of the relationships among the primary varia-
bles. Table 1 shows the Pearson correlation
coefficients, means, and SDs of these variables.
There are a few important details of this table
that should be pointed out. Previous research
shows that the rates of eating disorders, for
example, bulimia and binge eating disorder, are
higher among women than men (Hudson et al.,
2007), and that women report more emotional
eating than men (Larsen et al., 2006). Likewise,
our data show that women were more likely to
report emotional eating than men. Boredom
proneness and emotional regulation were both
strongly correlated with the emotional eating
variables. Also, activity levels were negatively
correlated with emotional eating. In planning
this study, and in the absence of a known litera-
ture or strong expectations, we speculated that
674 Journal of Health Psychology 20(5)

Table 1. Correlations among primary variables.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Sex –
2. Activity .24** –
3. BMI .14** −.08 –
4. BPS .07 −.14** .10* –
5. DERS .00 −.08 .06 .52** –
6. EESb −.19** −.12** −.01 .27** .39** –
7. EESo −.15** −.11* .04 .27** .42** .77** –
8. DBQem −.31** −.15** .05 .26** .36** .66** .77** –
9. DBQex −.02 −.03 −.02 .22** .25** .48** .42** .45** –
10. DBQre −.34** −.12** .18** .13** .23** .17** .17** .27** .03 –
M 3159.1 23.7 8.9 82.2 14.2 49.9 32.0 31.1 25.4
SD 2435.6 3.8 4.8 21.2 4.8 17.5 11.2 6.1 9.0

BMI: body mass index; BPS: Boredom Proneness Scale; DERS: Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale; EESb: Revised
Emotional Eating Scale, bored subscale; EESo: Revised Emotional Eating Scale, other emotions combined; DEBQem:
Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire, emotional eating scale; DEBQex: Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire, external
eating scale; DEBQre: Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire, restraint eating scale; SD: standard deviation; MET: meta-
bolic equivalent.
N = 552 for all pairs, except those involving BMI for which N = 544 due to missing data. Sex was coded as 0 = women,
1 = men. Activity levels are in MET minutes.
*p < .05; **p < .01.

activity levels might be associated with the
experience of boredom and bored eating and,
therefore, eventually with body mass. However,
these assumptions were not confirmed. As in
other studies of unselected young adults (e.g.
Ellickson-Larew et al., 2013), it can be seen that
emotional eating was not at all associated with
BMI in this sample. In our sample, men reported
higher levels of activity than women. Our initial
regression analyses included activity levels in
the prediction of emotional eating, but activity
and its interactions with sex of the participant
were never significant predictors, once the vari-
ance due to sex was accounted for. Therefore,
activity levels and BMI were not included in
any further analyses.
Five separate regression analyses were run
to determine possible predictors of emotional
eating. In each analysis, sex, BPS scores, DERS
scores, and their interactions were entered
simultaneously to predict eating outcomes.
Three analyses were concerned with emotional
eating and used the following scores as the
dependent variable: the EES bored subscale
(EESbored), the EES sum of all other emotions
(EESother), and the DEBQ emotional eating
scale (DEBQem). In order to test the specificity
of these predictive models for emotional eating,
we also used them to predict DEBQ external
eating scale (DEBQex) scores and the DEBQ
restraint eating scale (DEBQre) scores. All
scores were standardized prior to entering into
the analyses.
Bored eating
Sex, BPS, DERS, and their interactions were
entered into a regression equation to predict
EESbored scores. The overall model was sig-
nificant, F(7, 544) = 16.05, p < .001, R = .414,
R2 = .171. Table 2 lists the regression table for
this analysis. When significance values can be
stated more specifically than listed in the table,
they will be incorporated into the text. It can be
seen that women were more likely than men to
eat while bored. The proclivity to be bored
(p = .001) and difficulties in emotion regulation
were both predictive of bored eating, although
none of these variables interacted with each
other (all ps > .14).
Crockett et al. 675

Table 2. Predictors of emotional eating.

Variable EESbored EESother DEBQem

b SE b SE b SE
Constant .031 .044 .044 .118 .044 .042
Sex −.206*** .044 −.437*** .118 −.321*** .042
BPS .150** .046 .254* .126 .124** .044
DERS .276*** .047 1.054*** .127 .299*** .045
Sex × BPS −.040 .046 −.227 .125 −.068 .044
Sex × DERS .042 .048 .195 .129 .032 .046
BPS × DERS −.054 .037 −.055 .101 .001 .035
Sex × BPS × DERS .000 .039 −.001 .106 .004 .037

BPS: Boredom Proneness Scale; DERS: Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale; EESbored: Revised Emotional Eating
Scale, bored subscale; EESother: Revised Emotional Eating Scale, other emotions combined; DEBQem: Dutch Eating
Behavior Questionnaire, emotional eating scale; SE: standard error.
Sex was coded as 0 = women, 1 = men; b weights are unstandardized coefficients.
**p < .01; ***p < .001.

Emotional eating measures to predict specific aspects of eating

Two analyses were conducted in which the
EESother and the DEBQem scores served as
dependent variables. In the first, the overall
model including sex, BPS, DERS, and their
interactions significantly predicted EESother
scores, F(7, 544) = 20.70, p < .001, R = .459,
R2 = .210. Table 2 presents the regression table
for this analysis. When considered together,
each of the variables sex, boredom proneness
(p = .04), and difficulties in emotion regulation
significantly predicted emotional eating. None
of the interactions among these variables were
significant (all ps > .07).
Sex, BPS, DERS, and their interactions also
predicted DEBQem scores, the overall model
resulting in F(7, 544) = 25.25, p < .001, R = .495,
R2 = .245. The resulting beta weights from this
regression are also presented in Table 2. The
pattern of results is similar to the EESother
scores with sex, bored proneness (p = .005), and
emotional regulation each making meaningful
contributions to the model with no interactions
(all ps > .12).
behavior problems, two additional regression
analyses were conducted. In these cases, the
same variables were used to predict the external
and restrained eating scores of the DEBQ. When
entered simultaneously with their interaction
terms, sex, boredom proneness, and difficulties
in emotion regulation predicted DEBQex, F(7,
544) = 7.17, p < .001, R = .291, R2 = .084. The
regression table is presented in Table 3. Unlike
the previous analyses, the sex of the participant
was not predictive of eating in response to exter-
nal cues (p = .59). However, both boredom
proneness (p = .005) and emotional regulation
predicted DEBQex scores. None of the interac-
tions were significant (all ps > .09).
The model including sex, BPS, DERS, and
their interactions significantly predicted DEBQre
scores, F(7, 544) = 16.24, p < .001, R = .416,
R2 = .173. It can be seen in Table 3 that sex and
DERS were significant predictors of restrained
eating. However, BPS did not contribute mean-
ingfully to the predictive model (p = .384), nor
did any of the interaction terms (all ps > .46).

Other eating behavior problems Discussion

Given that part of the goal of this research was Overeating in response to negative emotions
to determine the ability of individual difference serves as a risk factor for the development of
676 Journal of Health Psychology 20(5)

Table 3. Predictors of other problematic eating behaviors.

Variable DEBQex DEBQre

b Standard b Standard
error error
Constant .039 .046 −.001 .044
Sex −.024 .046 −.335*** .044
BPS .136** .049 .040 .046
DERS .195*** .049 .204*** .047
Sex × BPS −.077 .048 −.032 .046
Sex × DERS .022 .050 −.035 .048
BPS × DERS −.065 .039 .005 .037
Sex × BPS × DERS −.009 .041 −.009 .039

BPS: Boredom Proneness Scale; DERS: Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale; DEBQex: Dutch Eating Behavior Ques-
tionnaire, external eating scale; DEBQre: Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire, restraint eating scale.
Sex was coded as 0 = women, 1 = men; b weights are unstandardized coefficients.
**p < .01; ***p < .001.

eating disorders as well as unhealthy weight
gain (Spoor et al., 2007; Stice et al., 2002).
Increasingly, researchers have looked at indi-
vidual difference measures in order to identify
those who are most vulnerable to emotional eat-
ing as well as to learn more about the potential
mechanisms that promote emotional eating
(Canetti et al., 2002; Larsen et al., 2006; Van
Strien and Ouwens, 2007). The present study
was conducted to extend this literature by spe-
cifically looking at boredom proneness and dif-
ficulties in emotional regulation. We had
hypothesized that individual differences in the
tendency to experience boredom as well as dif-
ficulties in the ability to cope with negative
emotions would predict emotional eating, espe-
cially eating in response to boredom.
Some important conclusions can be drawn
from the results of this study. First, the ten-
dency to experience boredom is predictive of
emotional eating. Although we had expected
this individual difference measure to be espe-
cially predictive of eating in response to bore-
dom, it was also predictive of eating in response
to a variety of negative emotions. It is possible
that the Boredom Proneness Scale is tapping in
to a general tendency to experience negative
affect. Previous research has shown that bore-
dom proneness is modestly correlated with
other measures of negative affect like loneli-
ness, depression, anxiety, and hostility (Farmer
and Sundberg, 1986; Vodanovich, 2003), as
well as neuroticism (Gordon et al., 1997). The
results of the present study are thus similar to
studies which have shown a relationship
between neuroticism and problematic eating
behaviors (Connolly et al., 2007; Ellickson-
Larew et al., 2013; Heaven et al., 2001). It may
be that the relationships observed in this study
simply reflect a general association between
the likelihood of experiencing negative emo-
tion and eating in response to a variety of nega-
tive emotions.
It is also possible that the strong and consist-
ent predictive power of boredom proneness in
this study is reflective of a personality trait that
could explain a unique portion of variance in
emotional eating. One potential mechanism for
this contribution is hinted at in the relationship
between boredom proneness and the external
scale of the DEBQ. External eating in this con-
text refers to the relatively greater influence of
external stimuli and food-related cues on eating
behavior than internal states. Boredom prone-
ness has been shown be to be associated with
distractibility and difficulties in attentional con-
trol (Kass et al., 2003). Even though emotional
eating has often been assumed to be a means of
Crockett et al.
avoiding or coping with negative emotions
(Heatherton and Baumeister, 1991; Macht,
2008), the independent contributions of bore-
dom proneness and emotion regulation in all of
the models lead us to wonder whether the influ-
ence of boredom proneness is related to some-
thing other than just negative emotion. If
boredom proneness were simply an indicator of
the likelihood of experiencing negative emo-
tion, we would expect that one’s ability to cope
with negative emotion would interact with the
experience of negative emotion. This was not
evident in any of the analyses. Further research
will be needed to determine the exact nature of
the influence that boredom proneness plays in
its relation to emotional eating, including the
possibility of reduced attentional control.
As stated, popular theories propose that eat-
ing in response to negative mood states is done
to negate the negative feelings by providing
either comfort or distraction (Heatherton and
Baumeister, 1991; Macht, 2008; Spoor et al.,
2007). Since eating in response to negative
affect is not adaptive, we predicted that it is a
behavior which would be most likely to occur
when individuals have difficulty in regulating
negative emotion. In every model we tested,
difficulties in emotion regulation predicted
emotional eating. This is consistent with the
eating disorders literature that posits a relation-
ship between emotion regulation and binge eat-
ing and purging (Berg et al., 2013; Haedt-Matt
and Keel, 2011; Wedig and Nock, 2010).
The lack of specificity in the predictive mod-
els might lie in the dependent variables rather
than in the predictors. That is, the correlations
among the measures of bored eating and emo-
tional eating were .66 and .77. Despite validation
efforts to create a scale that contributed inde-
pendent variance to the EES (Koball et al., 2012),
the high correlations between these measures
indicate that there was a fair amount of overlap
in the bored eating and emotional eating meas-
ures in the present sample. Thus, perhaps it is not
surprising that boredom proneness predicted
responses to all of these measures. Continued
refinement of the measures and the concept of
emotional eating might be warranted.
677
There are several limitations to the present
study. It should also be noted that the validity of
self-reported emotional eating has been called
into question (Evers et al., 2009). For this rea-
son, some would recommend only conducting
laboratory studies in which eating in response
to negative emotions could be directly observed.
However, multiple methodological issues make
laboratory eating studies expensive and diffi-
cult to conduct, including the adequate manipu-
lation and documentation of emotion change,
taking into account prior food intake, variability
in personal food preferences, avoiding experi-
mental demand, as well as conducting labora-
tory taste tests in a manner that is naturalistic
and generalizable to real-world settings. Despite
the criticisms of self-reported emotional eating,
some studies have demonstrated correspond-
ence between self-report and laboratory meth-
ods (e.g. Wallis and Hetherington, 2009). Given
the lack of previous work on boredom and our
desire to investigate individual differences,
which requires a large sample size, we elected
to start with a correlational study in the hopes of
providing data which would support further
experimental efforts.
It should also be noted that this was a cross-
sectional study which obviates causal infer-
ences. The data were collected in a young
healthy sample, where BMI was not correlated
with emotional eating, and all data were based
on self-report. Despite these qualifications, our
understanding of variables that impact the like-
lihood of emotional eating is important for
determining the risks involved in weight gain
and health, as well as for developing interven-
tions to prevent or remediate weight-related
health problems.
In summary, it was found that two individual
difference measures, boredom proneness and
difficulties in emotional regulation, indepen-
dently predicted the likelihood of self-reported
eating in response to negative emotions. They
did not interact with each other. Nor did they
interact with the sex of the participant. Koball
et al. (2012) found that eating in response to
boredom was the most frequently endorsed item
among college students, and that the factor
678
structure of the Revised EES supported the con-
clusion that eating in response to boredom was
different from eating in response to other emo-
tions. Although we were unable to confirm the
uniqueness of bored eating, the identification of
two predictive individual difference variable
provides an important step toward increasing
our ability to identify individuals who are likely
to experience problems with emotional eating.
The results also suggest that interventions aimed
at dealing with boredom, or perhaps improving
attentional control, and alternative means for
coping with negative emotions might be
employed to reduce emotional eating and its
consequences including overweight and obesity.
Further research to untangle the relationship
between boredom and other negative emotions
as they relate to emotional eating as well as to
determine the mechanisms by which proneness
to boredom has its influence is warranted.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any
funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-
profit sectors.
References
Abramson EE and Stinson SG (1977) Boredom
and eating in obese and non-obese individuals.
Addictive Behaviors 2(4): 181–185.
Adam TC and Epel ES (2007) Stress, eating and the
reward system. Physiology & Behavior 91(4):
449–458. DOI:10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.04.011.
Arnow B, Kenardy J and Agras WS (1995) The
Emotional Eating Scale: The development of a
measure to assess coping with negative affect
by eating. International Journal of Eating
Disorders 18(1): 79–90.
Berg KC, Crosby RD, Cao L, et al. (2013) Facets
of negative affect prior to and following binge-
only, purge-only, and binge/purge events
in women with bulimia nervosa. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology 122(1): 111–118.
DOI:10.1037/a0029703.
Canetti L, Bachar E and Berry EM (2002) Food and
emotion. Behavioural Processes 60(2): 157–164.
DOI:10.1016/S0376-6357(02)00082-7.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
(2011) Healthy weight—It’s not a diet, it’s a
Journal of Health Psychology 20(5)
lifestyle! 13 September. Available at: http://
www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/
adult_bmi/
Connolly AM, Rieger E and Caterson I (2007)
Binge eating tendencies and anger cop-
ing: Investigating the confound of trait neu-
roticism in a non-clinical sample. European
Eating Disorders Review 15(6): 479–486.
DOI:10.1002/erv.765.
Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjostrom M, et al. (2003)
International Physical Activity Questionnaire:
12-country reliability and validity. Medicine &
Science in Sports & Exercise 35(8): 1381–1395.
Ellickson-Larew S, Naragon-Gainey K and Watson
D (2013) Pathological eating behaviors, BMI,
and facet-level traits: The roles of conscien-
tiousness, neuroticism, and impulsivity. Eating
Behaviors 14(4): 428–431. DOI:10.1016/j.eat-
beh.2013.06.015.
Evers C, de Ridder DTD and Adriaanse MA (2009)
Assessing yourself as an emotional eater:
Mission impossible? Health Psychology 28(6):
717–725. DOI:10.1037/a0016700.
Evers C, Marijn Stok F and de Ridder DTD (2010)
Feeding your feelings: Emotion regulation
strategies and emotional eating. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin 36(6): 792–804.
DOI:10.1177/0146167210371383.
Farmer R and Sundberg ND (1986) Boredom prone-
ness—The development and correlates of a new
scale. Journal of Personality Assessment 50(1):
4–17. DOI:10.1207/s15327752jpa5001_2.
Goldberg YK, Eastwood JD, Laguardia J, et al.
(2011) Boredom: An emotional experience
distinct from apathy, anhedonia, or depression.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 30(6):
647–666. DOI:10.1521/jscp.2011.30.6.647.
Gordon A, Wilkinson R, McGown A, et al. (1997)
The psychometric properties of the Boredom
Proneness Scale: An examination of its validity.
Psychological Studies 42(2–3): 85–97.
Gratz KL and Roemer L (2004) Multidimensional
assessment of emotion regulation and dys-
regulation: Development, factor Structure, and
initial validation of the Difficulties in Emotion
Regulation Scale. Journal of Psychopathology
and Behavioral Assessment 26(1): 41–54.
Haedt-Matt AA and Keel PK (2011) Revisiting the
affect regulation model of binge eating: A meta-
analysis of studies using ecological momentary
assessment. Psychological Bulletin 137(4):
660–681. DOI:10.1037/a0023660.
Crockett et al.
Heatherton TF and Baumeister RF (1991) Binge eat-
ing as escape from self-awareness. Psychological
Bulletin 110(1): 86–108. DOI:10.1037/0033-
2909.110.1.86.
Heaven PCL, Mulligan K, Merrilees R, et al. (2001)
Neuroticism and conscientiousness as predic-
tors of emotional, external, and restrained eat-
ing behaviors. International Journal of Eating
Disorders 30(2): 161–166. DOI:10.1002/
eat.1068.
Hudson JI, Hiripi E, Pope HG Jr, et al. (2007) The
prevalence and correlates of eating disorders
in the national comorbidity survey replica-
tion. Biological Psychiatry 61(3): 348–358.
DOI:10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.03.040.
Kass SJ, Wallace JC and Vodanovich SJ (2003)
Boredom proneness and sleep disorders as
predictors of adult attention deficit scores.
Journal of Attention Disorders 7(2): 83–91.
DOI:10.1177/108705470300700202.
Koball AM, Meers MR, Storfer-Isser A, et al. (2012)
Eating when bored: Revision of the Emotional
Eating Scale with a focus on boredom. Health
Psychology 31(4): 521–524. DOI:10.1037/
a0025893.
Larsen JK, van Strien T, Eisinga R, et al. (2006)
Gender differences in the association between
alexithymia and emotional eating in obese indi-
viduals. Journal of Psychosomatic Research
60(3): 237–243. DOI:10.1016/j.jpsychores.
2005.07.006.
Macht M (2008) How emotions affect eating: A five-
way model. Appetite 50(1): 1–11.
Nguyen-Rodriguez ST, Unger JB and Spruijt-Metz
D (2009) Psychological determinants of emo-
tional eating in adolescence. Eating Disorders:
The Journal of Treatment & Prevention 17(3):
211–224.
Ogden C, Carrol M, Kit B, et al. (2012) Prevalence
of Obesity in the United States, 2009–2010.
Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health
Statistics.
Perpiñá C, Cebolla A, Botella C, et al. (2011)
Emotional Eating Scale for children and ado-
lescents: Psychometric characteristics in a
Spanish sample. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology 40(3): 424–433.
Quinton S and Wagner HL (2005) Alexithymia,
ambivalence over emotional expression, and
eating attitudes. Personality and Individual
Differences 38(5): 1163–1173. DOI:10.1016/j.
paid.2004.07.013.
679
Schachter S, Goldman R and Gordon A (1968) Effects
of fear, food deprivation, and obesity on eating.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
10(2): 91–97. DOI:10.1037/h0026284.
Schneider KL, Appelhans BM, Whited MC, et al.
(2010) Trait anxiety, but not trait anger, pre-
disposes obese individuals to emotional eat-
ing. Appetite 55(3): 701–706. DOI:10.1016/j.
appet.2010.10.006.
Spoor STP, Bekker MHJ, Van Strien T, et al. (2007)
Relations between negative affect, coping, and
emotional eating. Appetite 48(3): 368–376.
DOI:10.1016/j.appet.2006.10.005.
Steptoe A, Pollard TM and Wardle J (1995)
Development of a measure of the motives
underlying the selection of food: The Food
Choice Questionnaire. Appetite 25(3): 267–284.
DOI:10.1006/appe.1995.0061.
Stice E (2001) A prospective test of the dual-path-
way model of bulimic pathology: Mediating
effects of dieting and negative affect. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology 110(1): 124–135.
DOI:10.1037/0021-843X.110.1.124.
Stice E, Presnell K and Spangler D (2002) Risk
factors for binge eating onset in adoles-
cent girls: A 2-year prospective investiga-
tion. Health Psychology 21(2): 131–138.
DOI:10.1037/0278-6133.21.2.131.
Van Strien T and Ouwens MA (2007) Effects
of distress, alexithymia and impulsivity on
eating. Eating Behaviors 8(2): 251–257.
DOI:10.1016/j.eatbeh.2006.06.004.
Van Strien T, Engels RCME, Leeuwe JV, et al.
(2005) The Stice model of overeating: Tests
in clinical and non-clinical samples. Appetite
45(3): 205–213. DOI:10.1016/j.appet.2005.
08.004.
Van Strien T, Frijters JER, Bergers GPA, et al. (1986)
The Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire
(DEBQ) for Assessment of Restrained
Emotional, and External Eating Behavior.
International Journal of Eating Disorders 5(2):
295–315.
Vodanovich SJ (2003) Psychometric measures
of boredom: A review of the literature. The
Journal of Psychology 137(6): 569–595.
DOI:10.1080/00223980309600636.
Walfish S and Brown TA (2009) Self-assessed
emotional factors contributing to increased
weight in presurgical male bariatric patients.
Bariatric Nursing and Surgical Patient Care
4(1): 49–52.
680
Wallis DJ and Hetherington MM (2009) Emotions and
eating. Self-reported and experimentally induced
changes in food intake under stress. Appetite 52(2):
355–362. DOI:10.1016/j. appet.2008.11.007.
Wardle J, Guthrie CA, Sanderson S, et al. (2001)
Development of the Children’s Eating Behaviour
Questionnaire. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry 42(7): 963–970. DOI:10.1111/1469-
7610.00792.
Journal of Health Psychology 20(5)
Wedig MM and Nock MK (2010) The functional
assessment of maladaptive behaviors: A pre-
liminary evaluation of binge eating and purging
among women. Psychiatry Research 178(3):
518–524. DOI:10.1016/j.psychres. 2009.05.010.
World Health Organization (WHO) (2013) Obesity
and overweight: Fact sheet no. 311. Available
at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/
fs311/en/ (accessed 5 August 2013).
Copyright of Journal of Health Psychology is the property of Sage Publications, Ltd. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.