Table 2.
Pearson correlations between emotion differentiation variables, affect intensity, dysregulated eating, and BMI
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. NED-ICC | — | |||||||||||
| 2. PED-ICC | .31*** | — | ||||||||||
| 3. NED-AC | .83*** | .24*** | — | |||||||||
| 4. PED-AC | .23*** | .89*** | .23*** | — | ||||||||
| 5. NED-VAR | −.14** | .02 | −.08 | .11* | — | |||||||
| 6. PED-VAR | −.01 | .26*** | .05 | .19*** | .41*** | — | ||||||
| 7. Negative affect | −.31*** | −.02 | −.23*** | .11* | .82***† | .26*** | — | |||||
| 8. Positive affect | −.06 | −.12** | −.02 | −.10* | .17*** | .31*** | .26*** | — | ||||
| 9. Emotional eating | −.17*** | −.08 | −.09* | −.01 | .28*** | −.03 | .46*** | .11* | — | |||
| 10. Binge eating | −.14** | −.11* | −.11* | −.06 | .05 | −.05 | .17*** | −.05 | .21*** | — | ||
| 11. BMI | −.06 | −.09* | −.06 | −.07 | −.04 | −.002 | −.04 | −.08 | .01 | .10* | — | |
| 12. Age | .002 | −.02 | .01 | −.04 | −.06 | −.03 | −.11* | −.06 | −.03 | .09 | .20*** | — |
Note: NED-ICC = negative emotion differentiation calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient; PED-ICC = positive emotion differentiation calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient; NED-AC = negative emotion differentiation calculated using the average interitem correlation; PED-AC = positive emotion differentiation calculated using the average interitem correlation; NED-VAR = negative emotion differentiation calculated using the average daily variance of emotion ratings; PED-VAR = positive emotion differentiation calculated using the average daily variance of emotion ratings; negative and positive affect = average intensity of negative or positive affect across the study; emotional eating = average Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire Emotional Eating subscale score; binge eating = presence of clinically significant binge eating; BMI = body mass index.
p <.05,
p <.01,
p <.001.
Note that the high correlation between NED-VAR and negative affect intensity likely reflects the fact that most participants had low to moderate negative affect intensity (as would be expected for a population-based sample), so that individuals who had greater variability in negative emotion ratings (e.g., rated some emotions “1” and other emotions “5”) also tended to have higher negative affect intensity than individuals who had lower variability in negative emotion ratings (e.g., may have rated all negative emotions a “1”).