Table 2.

Regression models showing effects of impulsivity and approach bias for food on uncontrolled eating.

Model 1	b	SE b	β
Step 1
Constant	16.15	0.91
hunger	0.41	0.11	0.21**
lack of premeditation	0.22	0.06	0.21**
approach bias	0.01	0.00	0.11*
Step 2
Constant	16.21	0.92
hunger	0.41	0.11	0.21**
lack of premeditation	0.22	0.06	0.21**
approach bias	0.01	0.00	0.11*
interaction	0.00	0.00	0.11*
Note:N = 483: R2 = 0.07 for step 1: ΔR2 = 0.01 for step 2 (ps < 0.05): *p < 0.05, **p < 0.001
Model 2	b	SE b	β
Step 1
Constant	10.61	1.11
hunger	0.41	0.11	0.21**
negative urgency	0.41	0.11	0.32**
approach bias	0.00	0.00	0.11
Step 2
Constant	10.61	1.11
hunger	0.41	0.11	0.21**
negative urgency	0.41	0.11	0.32**
approach bias	-0.00	0.01	-0.11
interaction	0.00	0.00	0.14
Note:N = 483: R2 = 0.14, p < 0.001 for step 1: ΔR2 < 0.01 (n.s.) for step 2: **p < 0.001
Model 3	b	SE b	β
Step 1
Constant	13.71	1.11
hunger	0.41	0.11	0.21**
lack of perseverance	0.21	0.11	0.21**
approach bias	0.01	0.00	0.11*
Step 2
Constant	13.74	1.11
hunger	0.41	0.11	0.21**
lack of perseverance	0.21	0.11	0.21**
approach bias	-0.00	0.01	-0.07
interaction	0.00	0.00	0.21
Note:N = 480: R2 = 0.07, p < 0.001 for step 1: ΔR2 < 0.01 (n.s.) for step 2: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.001
Model 4	b	SE b	β
Step 1
Constant	14.72	1.14
hunger	0.41	0.11	0.21**
sensation-seeking	0.08	0.04	0.11
approach bias	0.00	0.00	0.11
Step 2
Constant	14.72	1.14
hunger	0.40	0.11	0.21**
sensation-seeking	0.11	0.04	0.08
approach bias	-0.01	0.01	-0.11
interaction	0.00	0.00	0.20
Note:N = 483: R2 = 0.05, p < 0.001 for step 1: ΔR2 < 0.01 (n.s.) for step 2: **p < 0.001