Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:

Jangle fallacy epidemic in obesity research: a comment on Ruddock et al. (2017)

International Journal of Obesity volume 42, pages 585–586 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

Ruddock et al.1 recently reported the development of a new questionnaire for the assessment of ‘eating addiction’ (Addiction-like Eating Behaviour Scale (AEBS)). Although we appreciate the efforts by the authors to advance the ‘food addiction’ field, we feel a more in-depth discussion is needed to demonstrate the distinctiveness of the AEBS from existing questionnaires and its specificity to capture addictive behavior. Otherwise, we see the AEBS contributing to jangle fallacy—the use of different questionnaires for capturing the same underlying construct.2 Jangle fallacy seems rather common in obesity research,3 and the consequences are unnecessary confusion, segregation of research and participant burden when many overlapping questionnaires are administered to participants.2, 3

Jangle fallacy is suggested by strong correlations between the AEBS and other eating-related questionnaires.1 A similar pattern can be seen for a previous ‘food addiction’ questionnaire (Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS)). Developers of the YFAS used a novel approach by ‘translating’ existing diagnostic criteria of substance dependence to refer to food and eating in order to characterize ‘food addiction’.4 By now, it has been observed that YFAS scores correlate strongly (r>0.50) with other eating-related questionnaires that assess binge eating, food cravings or similar constructs.5, 6, 7 Therefore, the YFAS seems to have recreated a phenomenon already captured by previous questionnaires—uncontrolled eating. The AEBS, in turn, seems to measure two very common traits—uncontrolled eating/appetitive drive and restraint.3, 6

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Ruddock HK, Christiansen P, Halford JCG, Hardman CA . The development and validation of the Addiction-like Eating Behaviour Scale. Int J Obes 2017; 41: ijo2017158; doi:https://doi.org.10.1038/ijo.2017.158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kelley TL . Interpretation of Educational Measurements. World Book Co.: Oxford, England, 1927.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Vainik U, Neseliler S, Konstabel K, Fellows LK, Dagher A . Eating traits questionnaires as a continuum of a single concept. Uncontrolled eating. Appetite 2015; 90: 229–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gearhardt AN, Corbin WR, Brownell KD . Preliminary validation of the Yale Food Addiction Scale. Appetite 2009; 52: 430–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mason AE, Vainik U, Acree M, Tomiyama AJ, Dagher A, Epel ES et al. Improving assessment of the spectrum of reward-related eating: the RED-13. Front Psychol 2017; 8: 795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Price M, Higgs S, Lee M . Self-reported eating traits: Underlying components of food responsivity and dietary restriction are positively related to BMI. Appetite 2015; 95: 203–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Meule A, Heckel D, Jurowich CF, Vögele C, Kübler A . Correlates of food addiction in obese individuals seeking bariatric surgery. Clin Obes 2014; 4: 228–236.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Goodman A . Addiction: definition and implications. Br J Addict 1990; 85: 1403–1408.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Westfall J, Yarkoni T . Statistically controlling for confounding constructs is harder than you think. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0152719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Karlsson J, Persson LO, Sjöström L, Sullivan M . Psychometric properties and factor structure of the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ) in obese men and women. Results from the Swedish Obese Subjects (SOS) study. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2000; 24: 1715–1725.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

UV is supported by Personal Post-doctoral Research Funding project PUTJD654 and by Fonds de recherche du Québec—Santé.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Montreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    U Vainik

  2. Institute of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

    U Vainik

  3. Department of Psychology, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

    A Meule

Authors
  1. U Vainik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A Meule
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to U Vainik.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vainik, U., Meule, A. Jangle fallacy epidemic in obesity research: a comment on Ruddock et al. (2017). Int J Obes 42, 585–586 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2017.264

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2017.264

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links