Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2026 Mar 30;59(7):1610–1618. doi: 10.1002/eat.70084

Emotion Regulation as a Predictor of Body Dissatisfaction in Individuals With Eating Disorders

Eline S J de Rijk 1,2,✉, Alexandra E Dingemans 1,2, Eric F van Furth 1,2, Margarita C T Slof‐Op 't Landt 1,2
PMCID: PMC13326809  PMID: 41913322

ABSTRACT

Objective

Body dissatisfaction (BD) plays a key role in the development and maintenance of eating disorders (EDs). BD might be influenced by emotion regulation. The maladaptive emotion regulation strategy suppression, aimed at inhibiting emotional responses, may increase BD by intensifying negative body‐related affect. Adaptive strategies like cognitive reappraisal, involving the reinterpretation of emotional situations, may reduce BD by reshaping emotional responses to body‐related cues. This study explored whether these strategies predicted BD at two follow‐up waves, one after 7–11 months and the second after 19–23 months, and whether ED status (current or recovered) moderated these effects.

Method

Data were drawn from three consecutive waves (T0), (T1), and (T2) of the longitudinal naturalistic Netherlands Eating disorder Registry (NER; n = 364), including individuals with current EDs (n = 276) and recovered individuals (n = 84). Two linear mixed‐effects models examined the effects of suppression and reappraisal on BD, with ED status as a moderator.

Results

Higher suppression levels were significantly associated with greater BD in individuals with EDs compared to recovered individuals at T0 (B = 3.08, p < 0.001). Neither reappraisal nor suppression predicted BD over time, nor did ED status moderate this relationship (reappraisal: p = 0.970 and p = 0.125, suppression: p = 0.884 and p = 0.582). Random effects indicated considerable individual variability in BD.

Discussion

The study found no evidence that suppression or cognitive reappraisal predicted longitudinal changes in BD. Only an association between suppression and BD was found, suggesting that suppression and BD do appear to co‐occur in EDs and may reinforce each other.

Keywords: body dissatisfaction, cognitive reappraisal, eating disorders, emotion regulation, predictors, suppression

Summary

  • Suppression was linked to higher body dissatisfaction in individuals with a current eating disorder.

  • Suppression and cognitive reappraisal did not predict changes in body dissatisfaction over time.

  • The effects of suppression and reappraisal on body dissatisfaction did not differ between current and recovered eating disorder groups.

1. Introduction

Body dissatisfaction (BD) is widely recognized as a key risk factor for development, maintenance, and poor outcomes of eating disorders (EDs) (Ahrberg et al. 2011; Glashouwer et al. 2019; McLean and Paxton 2019; Stice et al. 2019). It refers to the negative perception and dissatisfaction individuals have with their body shape or weight (Cash 2012), and represents a core diagnostic feature in anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa (McLean and Paxton 2019), while also being commonly observed in binge eating disorders (Melisse and Dingemans 2025). BD has significant clinical relevance for EDs as it is strongly associated with high relapse rates while also undermining the effectiveness of standard therapeutic approaches (Fairburn et al. 2003). To better address BD in individuals with EDs, it is essential to identify the psychological processes that contribute to its onset and maintenance (Lantz et al. 2018).

One important mechanism herein may be emotion regulation (Servian‐Franco et al. 2015) which entails the awareness of emotions and behavioral responses to emotional settings (Gratz and Roemer 2004). Individuals with EDs often show difficulties in emotion regulation and have a tendency to rely on maladaptive emotion regulation strategies while lacking effective adaptive ones (Aldao et al. 2010; Danner et al. 2012, 2014; Monell et al. 2018). The affect regulation model (Gross and Thompson 2007) highlights the importance of emotion regulation in EDs and suggests that maladaptive emotion regulation strategies can contribute to increased negative affect. However, in the context of BD, it is crucial to emphasize that this does not refer to general negative affect but instead to a body‐related emotional evaluative construct (Menzel et al. 2011). This construct includes emotional responses directed at one's body, such as body‐focused shame, distress, fear, sadness, anger, guilt, and irritability, but goes beyond emotions alone as it also encompasses cognitive and perceptual evaluations (Cruz‐Sáez et al. 2020; Sala et al. 2021). In this framework, maladaptive emotion regulation strategies may exacerbate BD by amplifying or prolonging these body‐related emotional reactions, which in turn can reinforce negative body evaluations, whereas adaptive strategies may mitigate such processes (Aldao et al. 2010; Danner et al. 2012; Dingemans et al. 2017).

In ED research, suppression is frequently examined as a maladaptive emotion regulation strategy, whereas cognitive reappraisal is commonly studied as an adaptive strategy. Both strategies are well defined across the literature and often used in everyday life (Gross and John 2003), allowing for precise measurement of individual differences and making them highly relevant for research and clinical application. Cognitive reappraisal is an adaptive strategy which involves reinterpreting a situation to alter its emotional impact, whereas suppression is a maladaptive strategy focusing on the inhibition of the outward expression of emotions without reducing the internal emotional experience (Dingemans et al. 2017; Gross 2015; Gross and John 2003). Reappraisal in relation to the experience of BD can, for example, include thinking: “My body allows me to move and function” or “appearance ideals are unrealistic.” For suppression, individuals may attempt to hide feelings such as shame or disgust when confronted with their own body, for example by avoiding visible signs of stress. Although emotions are not expressed, the underlying critical thoughts about their own body remain unchallenged. As a result, body related negative emotions increase and contribute to an alleviation of BD. In general, individuals with EDs use suppression more and cognitive reappraisal less frequently than healthy controls (Aldao et al. 2010; Dingemans et al. 2017). Research in both non‐clinical and ED populations showed that emotion regulation strategies can influence BD in the moment, with adaptive strategies reducing BD and maladaptive strategies increasing it (Hevron and Weinbach 2024; Prefit et al. 2020). However, their longitudinal relationship in EDs remains unclear.

The present study aimed to examine the relationship between cognitive reappraisal and suppression on BD over time. Thereby it focuses on the regulation of emotions that are possibly directed at and elicited by one's own body, a crucial yet understudied mechanism in understanding BD. Longitudinal analysis is necessary to clarify temporal dynamics and causal direction between emotion regulation and BD, which is essential for informing targeted interventions. Data from the Netherlands Eating disorder Registry (NER), a naturalistic transdiagnostic cohort that has been collecting data continuously since 2015 through regular follow‐ups, was used to investigate this. By including individuals across the full spectrum of ED subtypes and ED severity, the NER captures the diagnostic diversity of EDs and provides a representative sample of individuals with current ED related problems and recovered individuals. ED status (present or recovered) was included as a moderator in the expected relationship between both emotion regulation strategies and BD. It was expected that higher suppression levels at baseline predicted greater BD over time, with stronger effects for individuals with a current ED compared to those in recovery. Furthermore, higher cognitive reappraisal was expected to predict lower BD over time, with more pronounced effects for individuals with a current ED than for those in recovery.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

The NER data currently contains 1207 participants and was established in 2015 through a collaboration between GGZ Rivierduinen Eating Disorders Ursula, VU University, and the Dutch ED patient organization (Slof‐Op 't Landt et al. 2019). The NER study protocol received approval from the Permanent Committee on Science and Ethics at VU University. Individuals aged 12 or older can subscribe online if they currently have, or have previously experienced, an ED or related symptoms. After providing informed consent, participants complete a baseline questionnaire upon enrollment and are subsequently invited to participate in regular follow‐up waves. The waves collected in 2020, 2021, and 2022 included questionnaires on emotion regulation and BD. The current study used data from these waves; participants who completed the 2020 wave (T0), and at least one of the two consecutive waves (2021, 2022), were selected, resulting in a final sample of 364 participants.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ)

A Dutch translation of the ERQ was used to assess emotion regulation strategies at T0 (Gross and John 2003; Koole and Jostmann 2004). Items were measured on a 7‐point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The ERQ measured two distinct strategies: cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression. Cognitive reappraisal was assessed through six out of 10 items, while the remaining four items measured expressive suppression. Higher scores signified a greater utilization of the respective emotion regulation strategy. The subscales demonstrated good internal consistency, with a Cronbach's α of 0.84 for cognitive reappraisal and 0.82 for expressive suppression, which were similar to previous research (Moore et al. 2008).

2.2.2. Body Shape Questionnaire 8C (BSQ‐8C)

The BSQ‐8C (Evans and Dolan 1993) is a self‐report questionnaire which measured BD at T0, T1 and T2. It is comprised of eight items and derived from the BSQ‐34 (Cooper et al. 1987). Despite its brevity, the BSQ‐8C has demonstrated comparable sensitivity to the full‐length BSQ (Pook et al. 2008) and exhibits high levels of internal consistency and validity (Welch et al. 2012). Participants were asked to report on their BD experiences during the preceding four weeks, using a 6‐point scale (ranging from never to always). Permission was obtained from the authors to translate the full version of the BSQ into Dutch. The internal consistency of the BSQ was excellent at T0, T1 and T2 (all with a Cronbach's α of 0.95); for more information see Supporting Information 1 and Table S1.

2.2.3. The Eating Disorder Examination—Questionnaire (EDE‐Q 6.0)

The EDE‐Q 6.0 (Fairburn and Beglin 2008) is a self‐report questionnaire adapted from the semi‐structured Eating Disorders Examination interview (Fairburn et al. 2014). It was designed to evaluate ED psychopathology (22 items) and related behaviors (six items; i.e., frequency of laxative use, self‐induced vomiting and binging behaviors) over the last 28 days, with higher scores indicating more severe ED psychopathology. Previous research has demonstrated good reliability and validity of the EDE‐Q (Aardoom et al. 2012), the current study found a Cronbach's α of 0.97 for the global EDE‐Q score. A global score can be derived by averaging the 22 items measuring core attitudinal features of ED psychopathology. This score could accurately distinguish Dutch patients with an ED from individuals without EDs using a 2.17 clinical cut‐off (Dingemans et al. 2016). The EDE‐Q 6.0 was used to assess the ED status at T0 as described below.

2.2.4. Determination of ED Status

The NER included individuals who are currently diagnosed with an ED, who face ED symptoms but did not receive an official diagnosis, as well as those who have recovered from an ED. Participants were assigned to either the “recovered” group or the “current ED” group at T0, collectively representing the bivariate variable “ED status” (recovered = 0; current ED = 1). The criteria for classifying participants as recovered or current were based on Bardone‐Cone et al. (2010). Individuals who reported that they completely recovered from an ED or had ED symptoms in the past, combined with a score less than 2.17 on the EDE‐Q and the absence of binging and vomiting behaviors as well as laxative misuse in the past month, were defined as recovered. For the current group, participants complied if they reported the current experience of an ED, reported partial recovery (after a previous ED diagnosis), or if they reported ED symptoms or a history of an ED/ED symptoms while scoring above 2.17 on the EDEQ or engaging in ED behaviors.

2.3. Data Analysis

Data were analyzed in SPSS version 22.0. To examine the effects of emotion regulation on BD over time, two separate longitudinal linear mixed models (LMMs) were performed. These models handle missing data efficiently by including all available observations, even when some time points are missing, allowing for unbiased estimation without the need for imputation. Mixed effects models incorporate both fixed and random effects and are estimated using maximum likelihood methods. An optimal variance–covariance structure was determined by comparing Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) values across different models. Based on this comparison, the AutoRegressive 1 model was selected for our analyses, assuming similar variances and reducing correlation between waves over time.

The dependent variable in both models was BD, measured at T0, T1, and T2. Fixed effects/the independent variables included the following: Time (two dummy variables: T1 with T0 as reference category, and T2 with T0 as a reference), suppression or reappraisal at T0 (which were centered before inclusion), ED status at T0 (dummy variable with 1 current ED and 0 recovered), two‐way interactions (time × suppression/reappraisal, time × ED, suppression/reappraisal × ED) as well as three‐way interactions (time × suppression/reappraisal × ED). Random intercepts were specified to account for individual differences in BD, and repeated measures across time were modeled using an autoregressive covariance structure to account for within‐subject correlations. Effects were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Sample Characteristics

The demographic characteristics of the total sample, as well as the current and recovered ED groups, are presented in Table 1. t‐test comparisons between participants who completed T1 and/or T2 with those who dropped out revealed no significant differences at T0 in cognitive reappraisal (p = 0.473), suppression (p = 0.236), BD (p = 0.750), and EDE‐Q values (p = 0.272). A chi square test for the categorical variable ED status also did not show differences in dropout at T0 (p = 0.198).

TABLE 1.

Demographics of the complete, current ED group and recovered group.

Variable Whole group (N = 364) Current (N = 276) Recovered (N = 84)
Age T0 M = 30.6 (SD = 9.2) M = 31 (SD = 9.5) M = 29.3 (SD = 8.4)
Sex assigned at birth T0 360 F, 4 M 275 F, 1 M 82 F, 2 M
Ethnicity T0

Dutch/West‐European 360 Moroccan/Turkish 3

Other 1

Dutch/West‐European 275 Moroccan/Turkish 1

Other —

Dutch/West‐European 82 Moroccan/Turkish 1

Other 1
ED subtype T0 AN 188 AN 143 AN 45
BN 51 BN 36 BN 15
BED 16 BED 16 BED
OSFED 86 OSFED 65 OSFED 21
EDEQ‐global T0 M = 2.85 (SD = 1.8) M = 3.5 (SD = 1.5) M = 0.76 (SD = 0.51)
Suppression T0 M = 3.67 (SD = 1.4) M = 3.91 (SD = 1.3) M = 2.93 (SD = 1.4)
Cognitive reappraisal T0 M = 4.1 (SD = 1.1) M = 3.99 (SD = 1.1) M = 4.49 (SD = 0.9)
Body dissatisfaction T0 M = 27.07 (SD = 11.6) M = 31.19 (SD = 10) M = 14 (SD = 4.5)
Body dissatisfaction T1 M = 26.58 (SD = 11.7) M = 30.15 (SD = 10.7) M = 15.8 (SD = 7.2)
Body dissatisfaction T2 M = 26.25 (SD = 12) M = 29.5 (SD = 11.3) M = 15.86 (SD = 7)
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: AN = anorexia nervosa; BED = binge eating disorder; BN = bulimia nervosa; OSFED = other specified feeding or eating disorder; ED = eating disorder; EDEQ = eating disorder examination questionnaire; F = female; M = male.

3.2. Suppression

Suppression interacted with ED status (0 = recovered from an ED, 1 = current ED) at T0, higher suppression was linked to greater BD at T0 among those with an ED compared to recovered individuals (see Table 2, Figure 1). There were significant two‐way interactions between time and ED status, indicating that changes in BD over time varied depending on the presence of an ED. From T0 to T1 and T0 to T2, individuals with an ED showed a higher decrease in BD than recovered individuals. Suppression did not interact with time. The three‐way interactions involving time, suppression, and ED status were not significant. In other words, for recovered individuals and individuals with a current ED there was no effect of suppression on BD over time. Related to the random effects, the model showed substantial variability in BD across individuals. A significant random intercept (variance = 58.38) indicated meaningful baseline differences between participants. Within‐person fluctuations across time points were also notable (AR(1) diagonal = 28.17), though the correlation between adjacent time points was low and nonsignificant (ρ = 0.11), suggesting limited temporal consistency (individual scores are not stable over time) after accounting for fixed and random effects. This is unsurprising given the heterogeneous nature of the sample, which included individuals ranging from fully recovered to those with severe ongoing symptoms.

TABLE 2.

Mixed effects model 1: Suppression.

Estimate SE t p
Fixed effects
Intercept 13.78 1.15 (504.7) = 11.97 < 0.001
Time T1 vs. T0 1.66 0.9 (427.41) = 1.84 0.066
Time T2 vs. T0 2.28 1.11 (271.74) = 2.05 0.041
Suppression −0.3 0.74 (504.7) = −0.40 0.686
ED 16.72 1.29 (504.7) = 12.99 < 0.001
Time T1 vs. T0 × suppression −0.21 0.59 (423.57) = −0.34 0.734
Time T2 vs. T0 × suppression −0.01 0.72 (269.92) = −0.02 0.986
Time T1 vs. T0 × ED −2.41 1.01 (426.95) = −2.39 0.017
Time T2 vs. T0 × ED −4.27 1.24 (271.28) = −3.43 < 0.001
Suppression × ED 3.08 0.86 (504.70) = 3.59 < 0.001
Time T1 vs. T0 × suppression × ED −0.09 0.68 (424.02) = −0.15 0.884
Time T2 vs. T0 × suppression × ED −0.46 0.83 (270.43) = −0.55 0.582
Random effects
Intercept variance 58.38 6.11 < 0.001
AR(1) diagonal 28.17 3.39 < 0.001
AR(1) rho 0.11 0.12 0.332
Open in a new tab

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Suppression model.

3.3. Cognitive Reappraisal

Similar to the suppression model, time interacted with ED status, individuals with an ED showed a higher decrease in BD over time than those who were recovered. Overall, no effects were found for cognitive reappraisal; the two‐way interaction between reappraisal and ED status was not significant, and neither did reappraisal interact significantly with time (Table 3, Figure 2). Also, the three‐way interactions involving time, reappraisal, and ED status were nonsignificant. There were considerable individual differences in baseline BD (variance = 67.03) as well as significant variability across time within individuals (AR(1) diagonal = 26.86). The autocorrelation between repeated measures remained nonsignificant (ρ = 0.08), suggesting fluctuations over time were not strongly patterned after accounting for modeled effects.

TABLE 3.

Mixed effects model 2: Cognitive reappraisal.

Estimate SE t p
Fixed effects
Intercept 13.79 1.15 t(504.7) = 11.99 < 0.001
Time T1 vs. T0 1.56 0.86 t(427.41) = 1.81 0.070
Time T2 vs. T0 2.33 1.03 t(271.74) = 2.26 0.024
Reappraisal 0.53 1.16 t(504.7) = 0.46 0.648
ED 17.21 1.29 t(504.7) = 13.34 < 0.001
Time T1 vs. T0 × reappraisal 0.64 0.87 t(423.57) = 0.74 0.463
Time T2 vs. T0 × reappraisal −0.15 1.05 t(269.92) = −0.14 0.884
Time T1 vs. T0 × ED −2.30 0.97 t(426.95) = −2.37 0.018
Time T2 vs. T0 × ED −4.23 1.16 t(271.28) = −3.65 < 0.001
Reappraisal × ED −2.23 1.28 t(504.7) = −1.74 0.083
Time T1 vs. T0 × reappraisal × ED −0.036 0.97 t(424.02) = −0.04 0.970
Time T2 vs. T0 × reappraisal × ED 1.78 1.16 t(270.43) = 1.53 0.125
Random effects
Intercept variance 67.03 6.47 < 0.001
AR(1) diagonal 26.86 3.03 < 0.001
AR(1) rho 0.08 0.12 0.492
Open in a new tab

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Cognitive reappraisal model.

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to investigate the predictive effects of suppression and cognitive reappraisal on BD in EDs over a maximum two‐year follow‐up period. Longitudinal naturalistic data from the NER cohort were used to examine this. ED status (i.e., current or recovered) was included as a moderator, expecting stronger effects between both emotion regulation strategies and BD for individuals with a current ED. Despite our expectations, cognitive reappraisal and suppression were no significant predictors of changes in BD at follow‐up, nor was this relationship moderated by ED status. At baseline, higher suppression was associated with higher BD for individuals with a current ED; while no association between cognitive reappraisal and BD was found.

The association between suppression and BD may be explained by individuals with EDs habitually relying on suppression (Aldao et al. 2010; Danner et al. 2014; Dingemans et al. 2017), which exacerbates the emotional distress associated with BD, making both suppression and BD more pronounced at baseline. However, over time the effects of suppression might diminish as other factors, such as illness course, treatment, or changes in symptom severity, begin to influence the relationship between emotion regulation and BD, which is a common issue in longitudinal research (Fitzmaurice et al. 2008). Suppression may be easier for participants to report than cognitive reappraisal, a concept that is often less understood (Aldao et al. 2010; Danner et al. 2014; Dingemans et al. 2017). Individuals with EDs often experience emotions related to BD more intensely than healthy controls, which amplifies the difficulty of effectively implementing reappraisal (Vuillier et al. 2025), likely accounting for the missing association between reappraisal and BD at baseline.

The nonsignificant longitudinal effects of both emotion regulation strategies on BD might be related to emotion regulation strategies being more closely linked to the negative emotions associated with BD, such as anxiety or stress, than to BD itself (Goldschmidt et al. 2014; Nechita and David 2023; Schaefer et al. 2020). To support this idea, Prefit et al. (2020) found that reappraisal and acceptance strategies reduced both BD and negative emotions following BD exposure. Similarly, Mikhail et al. (2024) conducted a study among university students which showed that maladaptive emotion regulation predicted greater disordered eating behaviors, but this was mediated by increased negative affect. Taken together, this suggests that emotion regulation may affect negative emotions more than it affects BD itself. Another reason for the nonsignificant longitudinal effects might be explained by our study relying on self‐report measures. As stated before, individuals with EDs may have a limited understanding of the concept of cognitive reappraisal (Aldao et al. 2010; Danner et al. 2014; Dingemans et al. 2017), resulting in a misjudgment of this strategy, thereby reducing the likelihood of our study to detect an effect on BD over time. Previous experimental studies in non‐clinical and clinical populations with EDs, which did find a relationship between emotion regulation and BD (Hevron and Weinbach 2024; Naumann et al. 2016; Prefit et al. 2020; Svaldi and Naumann 2014), employed a training that explicitly instructed participants in the use of emotion regulation strategies and induced BD by imaginary or media exposure. These experiments may have been more effective in detecting the impact of emotion regulation on BD, as they actively engage and teach participants in strategy use instead of relying on self‐report measures.

This is the first longitudinal study that examined suppression and cognitive reappraisal in relation to BD over time in individuals with EDs. The use of data from the naturalistic NER sample comprised of the complete spectrum of ED subtypes and recovery states strengthens generalizability to the whole ED field. The substantial variation in BD and the application of linear mixed‐effects models enhanced sensitivity and robustness against missing data as well as irregular time intervals which are common issues in longitudinal research (Twisk 2013). However, due to the design of the NER, emotion regulation could only be assessed via self‐report questionnaires like the ERQ, which restricted our focus to the specific emotion regulation strategies suppression and cognitive reappraisal. The present study only focused on the emotion regulation strategies reappraisal and suppression as they are considered the most representative of antecedent‐focused and response‐focused emotion regulation strategies (Gross and John 2003). Future research could extend this work by examining other strategies, such as rumination, avoidance, or acceptance, which experimental studies have shown to be related to BD (Naumann et al. 2016; Svaldi and Naumann 2014). Furthermore, the sample's ethnic composition mostly consists of Dutch/Western women which limits the generalizability of our findings. Another limitation is the use of ED status at baseline as a moderator. Because participants may have transitioned between ED and recovery during follow‐up, heterogeneity was likely introduced within the groups. This is particularly relevant for BD, as individuals with an ED at baseline may have experienced larger reductions in BD over time due to natural recovery or treatment effects. Consequently, the moderating effect of baseline ED status may primarily reflect initial clinical severity rather than a stable diagnostic category, and changes in BD over time could partly result from improvements in ED symptoms rather than the predictive role of emotion regulation strategies alone. Moreover, other psychological and contextual factors, including social influences such as peer feedback and social media, personality traits, coping styles, and trauma, all highly related to EDs and BD, were not included (Bocci Benucci et al. 2024; Rizwan et al. 2022). These factors might have shaped BD trajectories beyond emotion regulation. Future research should explore whether providing training in diverse emotion regulation strategies can help reduce BD in individuals with EDs over time. Conducting this type of research is important as the observed association between suppression and BD at baseline suggests that understanding the role of emotion regulation could help improve intervention strategies for individuals with EDs.

The present study found no evidence that suppression or cognitive reappraisal predicted longitudinal changes in BD, nor that ED status moderated these relationships. The observed cross‐sectional association between suppression and BD in individuals with a current ED suggests that suppression co‐occurs with BD and that they potentially reinforce each other. Being aware of the tendency of individuals with a current ED to use maladaptive emotion regulation strategies, like suppression, and its possible effects on core features of the ED is essential in treatment.

Author Contributions

Eline S. J. de Rijk: conceptualization, formal analysis, project administration, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Alexandra E. Dingemans: conceptualization, supervision, writing – review and editing. Eric F. van Furth: conceptualization; supervision; writing – review and editing. Margarita C. T. Slof‐Op 't Landt: conceptualization, supervision; writing – review and editing.

Lived Experience Involvement Statement

No specific efforts were undertaken to involve persons with lived experience in the study design or execution, or in the preparation of this manuscript.

Funding

The authors have nothing to report.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

Table S1: Psychometric properties of the Dutch BSQ‐8c at three waves.

EAT-59-1610-s001.docx (16.8KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

Use of AI was not involved in any component of preparation of this manuscript.

de Rijk, E. S. J. , Dingemans A. E., van Furth E. F., and Landt M. C. T. S. O.. 2026. “Emotion Regulation as a Predictor of Body Dissatisfaction in Individuals With Eating Disorders.” International Journal of Eating Disorders 59, no. 7: 1610–1618. 10.1002/eat.70084.

Action Editor: Jake Linardon

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Aardoom, J. J. , Dingemans A. E., Op't Landt M. C. S., and Van Furth E. F.. 2012. “Norms and Discriminative Validity of the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE‐Q).” Eating Behaviors 13, no. 4: 305–309. 10.1016/j.eatbeh.2012.09.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahrberg, M. , Trojca D., Nasrawi N., and Vocks S.. 2011. “Body Image Disturbance in Binge Eating Disorder: A Review.” European Eating Disorders Review 19, no. 5: 375–381. 10.1002/erv.1100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Aldao, A. , Nolen‐Hoeksema S., and Schweizer S.. 2010. “Emotion‐Regulation Strategies Across Psychopathology: A Meta‐Analytic Review.” Clinical Psychology Review 30, no. 2: 217–237. 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bardone‐Cone, A. M. , Harney M. B., Maldonado C. R., et al. 2010. “Defining Recovery From an Eating Disorder: Conceptualization, Validation, and Examination of Psychosocial Functioning and Psychiatric Comorbidity.” Behaviour Research and Therapy 48, no. 3: 194–202. 10.1016/j.brat.2009.11.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bocci Benucci, S. , Fioravanti G., Silvestro V., et al. 2024. “The Impact of Following Instagram Influencers on Women's Body Dissatisfaction and Eating Disorder Symptoms.” Nutrients 16, no. 16: 2730. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cash, T. F. 2012. “Cognitive‐Behavioral Perspectives on Body Image.” In Encyclopedia of Body Image and Human Appearance, edited by Cash T. F., 334–342. Elsevier Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cooper, P. J. , Taylor M. J., Cooper Z., and Fairbum C. G.. 1987. “The Development and Validation of the Body Shape Questionnaire.” International Journal of Eating Disorders 6, no. 4: 485–494. 10.1002/1098-108x(198707)6:4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cruz‐Sáez, S. , Pascual A., Wlodarczyk A., and Echeburúa E.. 2020. “The Effect of Body Dissatisfaction on Disordered Eating: The Mediating Role of Self‐Esteem and Negative Affect in Male and Female Adolescents.” Journal of Health Psychology 25, no. 8: 1098–1108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Danner, U. N. , Evers C., Stok F. M., van Elburg A. A., and de Ridr D. T.. 2012. “A Double Burden: Emotional Eating and Lack of Cognitive Reappraisal in Eating Disordered Women.” European Eating Disorders Review 20, no. 6: 490–495. 10.1002/erv.2184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Danner, U. N. , Sternheim L., and Evers C.. 2014. “The Importance of Distinguishing Between the Different Eating Disorders (Sub)types When Assessing Emotion Regulation Strategies.” Psychiatry Research 215, no. 3: 727–732. 10.1016/j.psychres.2014.01.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dingemans, A. E. , Danner U., and Parks M.. 2017. “Emotion Regulation in Binge Eating Disorder: A Review.” Nutrients 9, no. 11: 12–74.  10.3390/nu9111274. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Dingemans, A. E. , van Son G. E., Aardoom J. J., Bruidegom K., Slof‐Op 't Landt M. C., and van Furth E. F.. 2016. “Predictors of Psychological Outcome in Patients With Eating Disorders: A Routine Outcome Monitoring Study.” International Journal of Eating Disorders 49, no. 9: 863–873. 10.1002/eat.22560. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Evans, C. , and Dolan B.. 1993. “Body Shape Questionnaire: Derivation of Shortened “Alternate Forms”.” International Journal of Eating Disorders 13, no. 3: 315–321. 10.1002/1098-108x(199304)13:3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Fairburn, C. G. , and Beglin S. J.. 2008. “Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire.” In Cognitive Behaviour Therapy and Eating Disorders, edited by Fairbun C. G., 309–313. Guilford Press. 10.1037/t03974-000. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Fairburn, C. G. , Cooper Z. C., and O'Connor M.. 2014. Eating Disorder Examination (Edition 17.0D). CBT‐E. [Google Scholar]
  16. Fairburn, C. G. , Cooper Z. C., and Shafran R.. 2003. “Cognitive Behaviour Therapy for Eating Disorders: A “Transdiagnostic” Theory and Treatment.” Behaviour Research and Therapy 41, no. 5: 509–528. 10.1016/s0005-7967(02)00088-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Fitzmaurice, G. , Davidian M., Verbeke G., and Molenberghs G.. 2008. Longitudinal Data Analysis. CRC Press. 10.1201/9781420011579. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Glashouwer, K. A. , van der Veer R. M. L., Adipatria F., de Jong P. J., and Vocks S.. 2019. “The Role of Body Image Disturbance in the Onset, Maintenance, and Relapse of Anorexia Nervosa: A Systematic Review.” Clinical Psychology Review 74: 101771. 10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101771. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Goldschmidt, A. B. , Wonderlich S. A., Crosby R. D., et al. 2014. “Ecological Momentary Assessment of Stressful Events and Negative Affect in Bulimia Nervosa.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 82, no. 1: 30–39. 10.1037/a0034974. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gratz, K. L. , and Roemer L.. 2004. “Multidimensional Assessment of Emotion Regulation and Dysregulation.” Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 26, no. 1: 41–54. 10.1023/b:joba.0000007455.08539.94. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gross, J. J. 2015. “Emotion Regulation: Current Status and Future Prospects.” Psychological Inquiry 26, no. 1: 1–26. 10.1080/1047840x.2014.940781. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gross, J. J. , and 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, no. 2: 348–362. 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gross, J. J. , and Thompson R. A.. 2007. “Emotion Regulation: Conceptual Foundations.” In Handbook of emotion regulation, edited by Gross J. J., 3–24. The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hevron, H. , and Weinbach N.. 2024. “Self‐Compassion and Cognitive Reappraisal Restore Female Adolescents' Body Satisfaction and Appreciation After Appearance‐Related Rumination.” Body Image 51: 101779. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Koole, S. L. , and Jostmann N. B.. 2004. “Getting a Grip on Your Feelings: Effects of Action Orientation and External Demands on Intuitive Affect Regulation.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87, no. 6: 974–990. 10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.974. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lantz, E. L. , Gaspar M. E., DiTore R., Piers A. D., and Schaumberg K.. 2018. “Conceptualizing Body Dissatisfaction in Eating Disorders Within a Self‐Discrepancy Framework: A Review of Evidence.” Eating and Weight Disorders 23, no. 3: 275–291. 10.1007/s40519-018-0483-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. McLean, S. A. , and Paxton S. J.. 2019. “Body Image in the Context of Eating Disorders.” Psychiatric Clinics 42, no. 1: 145–156. 10.1016/j.psc.2018.10.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Melisse, B. , and Dingemans A.. 2025. “Redefining Diagnostic Parameters: The Role of Overvaluation of Shape and Weight in Binge‐Eating Disorder: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Eating Disorders 13, no. 1: 9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Menzel, J. E. , Krawczyk R., and Thompson J. K.. 2011. “Attitudinal assessment of body image for adolescents and adults.” In Body image: A handbook of science, practice, and prevention, edited by Cash T. F. and Smolak L., 154–169. The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  30. Mikhail, M. E. , Burt S. A., Neale M. C., Keel P. K., Katzman D. K., and Klump K. L.. 2024. “Changes in Affect Longitudinally Mediate Associations Between Emotion Regulation Strategy Use and Disordered Eating.” International Journal of Eating Disorders 57, no. 5: 1181–1191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Monell, E. , Clinton D., and Birgegård A.. 2018. “Emotion Dysregulation and Eating Disorders—Associations With Diagnostic Presentation and Key Symptoms.” International Journal of Eating Disorders 51, no. 8: 921–930. 10.1002/eat.22925. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Moore, S. A. , Zoellner L. A., and Mollenholt N.. 2008. “Are Expressive Suppression and Cognitive Reappraisal Associated With Stress‐Related Symptoms?” Behaviour Research and Therapy 46, no. 9: 993–1000. 10.1016/j.brat.2008.05.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Naumann, E. , Tuschen‐Caffier B., Voderholzer U., Schafer J., and Svaldi J.. 2016. “Effects of Emotional Acceptance and Rumination on Media‐Induced Body Dissatisfaction in Anorexia and Bulimia Nervosa.” Journal of Psychiatric Research 82: 119–125. 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2016.07.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Nechita, D.‐M. , and David D.. 2023. “Shame Facets as Predictors of Problematic Eating Behaviors: An Ecological Momentary Assessment Study.” Behaviour Research and Therapy 168: 104381. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Pook, M. , Tuschen‐Caffier B., and Brahler E.. 2008. “Evaluation and Comparison of Different Versions of the Body Shape Questionnaire.” Psychiatry Research 158, no. 1: 67–73. 10.1016/j.psychres.2006.08.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Prefit, A. B. , Candea D. M., and Szentagotai‐Tatar A.. 2020. “Effects of Acceptance and Reappraisal on Body Dissatisfaction: An Experimental Comparison of Two Adaptive Emotion Regulation Strategies.” Eating and Weight Disorders 25, no. 3: 803–809. 10.1007/s40519-019-00691-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Rizwan, B. , Zaki M., Javaid S., et al. 2022. “Increase in Body Dysmorphia and Eating Disorders Among Adolescents due to Social Media: Increase in Body Dysmorphia and Eating Disorders Among Adolescents.” Pakistan BioMedical Journal 5, no. 3: 148–152. [Google Scholar]
  38. Sala, M. , Linde J. A., Crosby R. D., and Pacanowski C. R.. 2021. “State Body Dissatisfaction Predicts Momentary Positive and Negative Affect but Not Weight Control Behaviors: An Ecological Momentary Assessment Study.” Eating and Weight Disorders‐Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia and Obesity 26, no. 6: 1957–1962. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Schaefer, L. M. , Smith K. E., Anderson L. M., et al. 2020. “The Role of Affect in the Maintenance of Binge‐Eating Disorder: Evidence From an Ecological Momentary Assessment Study.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 129, no. 4: 387–396. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Servian‐Franco, F. , Moreno‐Dominguez S., and del Paso G. A.. 2015. “Body Dissatisfaction and Mirror Exposure: Evidence for a Dissociation Between Self‐Report and Physiological Responses in Highly Body‐Dissatisfied Women.” PLoS One 10, no. 4: e0122737. 10.1371/journal.pone.0122737. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Slof‐Op 't Landt, M. C. T. , Dingemans A. E., de la Torre Y. R. J., and van Furth E. F.. 2019. “Self‐Assessment of Eating Disorder Recovery: Absence of Eating Disorder Psychopathology Is Not Essential.” International Journal of Eating Disorders 52, no. 8: 956–961. 10.1002/eat.23091. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Stice, E. , Johnson S., and Turgon R.. 2019. “Eating Disorder Prevention.” Psychiatric Clinics of North America 42, no. 2: 309–318. 10.1016/j.psc.2019.01.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Svaldi, J. , and Naumann E.. 2014. “Effects of Rumination and Acceptance on Body Dissatisfaction in Binge Eating Disorder.” European Eating Disorders Review 22, no. 5: 338–345. 10.1002/erv.2312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Twisk, J. W. 2013. Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis for Epidemiology: A Practical Guide. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  45. Vuillier, L. , Wang Z., Hassan S., Harrison A., Somerville M. P., and He X.. 2025. “Emotional Overload in Bulimia Nervosa: An ERP Study of Emotion Processing and Regulation.” Journal of Eating Disorders 13, no. 1: 74. 10.1186/s40337-025-01245-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Welch, E. , Lagerstrom M., and Ghaderi A.. 2012. “Body Shape Questionnaire: Psychometric Properties of the Short Version (BSQ‐8C) and Norms From the General Swedish Population.” Body Image 9, no. 4: 547–550. 10.1016/j.bodyim.2012.04.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Table S1: Psychometric properties of the Dutch BSQ‐8c at three waves.

EAT-59-1610-s001.docx (16.8KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Articles from The International Journal of Eating Disorders are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES