We thank Vainik and Meule (2017)(ref. 1) for their comments regarding the validation of the Addiction-like Eating Behaviour Scale (AEBS). Drawing upon correlations observed between the AEBS and other measures of eating behaviour, Vainik and Meule suggest that the AEBS may contribute to ‘jangle fallacy’ (that is, the use of different questionnaires to capture the same construct) within obesity research. We are similarly mindful of this issue and agree that further discussion is important in order to advance research into addiction-like eating and obesity.
As Vainik and Meule point out, the two-factor structure of the AEBS (that is, appetitive drive/dietary control) reflects other measures of eating behaviour. Indeed, if we are to conceptualise addiction-like eating as an exaggeration of our natural motivation to obtain food, then it is not surprising that some items map onto existing questionnaires. Notably, recent research has shown that many eating behaviour questionnaires measure common underlying constructs of ‘uncontrolled eating’/‘food responsivity’ and ‘dietary restriction’,2, 3 and the two-factor structure of the AEBS is consistent with this. The AEBS may therefore be used as a single questionnaire that captures core eating behaviours that are associated with having higher body mass index (BMI).
The core behavioural processes captured by the AEBS are also extant in drug use, problematic drinking and other compulsive behaviours. Critically, the two-factor structure of the AEBS is entirely consistent with established dual-process theoretical models, which underpin a range of motivated behaviours (for example, eating, drug/alcohol use).4 Our analyses suggest that the AEBS specifically captures these ‘addiction-like’ processes. In our paper, AEBS and Binge Eating Scale (BES) scores differentially converged with measures of disordered eating and problematic drinking; AEBS scores correlated positively with problematic drinking but, unlike the BES, did not correlate with a measure of disordered eating (characterised by weight concern and dietary restriction). This suggests that the AEBS captures eating behaviours that share similar risk factors with other addictive disorders (that is, problematic drinking), and which are distinct from traditional eating disorders. This is important as the aetiology of compulsive overeating likely differs between individuals;5 while some individuals may engage in overeating following chronic attempts at dietary restriction, others may be driven by addiction-like processes towards food. Our findings suggest that the AEBS may usefully distinguish between subsets of individuals who engage in compulsive overeating.
To further establish the distinctiveness of the AEBS, it is important to examine the extent to which it predicts observable outcomes (for example, BMI) over existing measures of compulsive overeating (that is, incremental validity). To do this, Vainik and Meule suggest using a structural equation modelling framework using the scales’ latent variables. This approach provides a more reliable estimate of incremental validity (compared to the regression analysis reported) by controlling for measurement error.6 We are grateful for this suggestion and we have used this method to re-examine the scale’s ability to predict variance in BMI after controlling for the latent BES7 and Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS) ‘symptoms’.8, 9 Consistent with our reported findings, the AEBS significantly predicted variance in BMI when controlling for the BES and YFAS (and measurement error in the latent variables) (B=1.82, s.e.=0.76, P=0.017). These findings provide further support for the ability of the AEBS to capture behaviours that are not already accounted for by existing measures of compulsive overeating.
References
Vainik U, Meule A . Jangle fallacy epidemic in obesity research: A comment on Ruddock et al. Int J Obes 2017 doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2017.264.
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.
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.
Wiers RW, Bartholow BD, van den Wildenberg E, Thush C, RCME Engels, Sher KJ et al. Automatic and controlled processes and the development of addictive behaviors in adolescents: a review and a model. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2007; 86: 263–283.
Spurrell EB, Wilfley DE, Tanofsky MB, Brownell KD . Age of onset for binge eating: are there different pathways to binge eating? Int J Eat Disord 1997; 21: 55–65.
Westfall J, Yarkoni T . Statistically controlling for confounding constructs is harder than you think. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0152719.
Gormally J, Black S, Daston S, Rardin D . The assessment of binge eating severity among obese persons. Addict Behav 1982; 7: 47–55.
Gearhardt AN, Corbin WR, Brownell KD . Preliminary validation of the Yale food addiction scale. Appetite 2009; 52: 430–436.
Gearhardt AN, White MA, Masheb RM, Morgan PT, Crosby RD, Grilo CM . An examination of the food addiction construct in obese patients with binge eating disorder. Int J Eat Disord 2012; 45: 657–663.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
About this article
Cite this article
Ruddock, H., Christiansen, P., Halford, J. et al. Response to ‘Jangle fallacy epidemic in obesity research: a comment on Ruddock et al. (2017)’. Int J Obes 42, 586 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2017.290
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2017.290