↓ Skip to main content

The Association among Emotions and Food Choices in First-Year College Students Using mobile-Ecological Momentary Assessments

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
185 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Association among Emotions and Food Choices in First-Year College Students Using mobile-Ecological Momentary Assessments
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5447-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessica Ashurst, Irene van Woerden, Genevieve Dunton, Michael Todd, Punam Ohri-Vachaspati, Pamela Swan, Meg Bruening

Abstract

Studies have examined the associations between emotions and overeating but have only rarely considered associations between emotions and specific food choices. The purpose of this secondary data analysis was to use mobile ecological momentary assessments (mEMAs) to examine associations between emotions and food choices among first-year college students living in residence halls. Using an intensive repeated-measures design, mEMAs were used to assess concurrent emotions and food choices in a racially/ethnically diverse sample of first-year college students (n = 663). Emotions were categorized as negative (sad, stressed, tired), positive (happy, energized, relaxed), and apathetic (bored, meh). Assessments were completed multiple times per day on four quasi-randomly selected days (three random weekdays and one random weekend day) during a 7-day period using random prompt times. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to examine between- and within-person associations of emotional status with a variety of healthy and unhealthy food choices (sweets, salty snacks/fried foods, fruits/vegetables, pizza/fast food, sandwiches/wraps, meats/proteins, pasta/rice, cereals), adjusting for gender, day of week, and time of day, accounting for within-person dependencies among repeated measurements of eating behavior. At the between-person level, participants who reported positive emotions more frequently compared to others consumed meats/proteins more often (OR = 1.8; 99% CI = 1.2, 2.8). At the within-person level, on occasions when any negative emotion was reported (versus no negative emotion reported) participants were more likely to consume meats/proteins (OR = 1.5, 99% CI = 1.0, 2.1); on occasions when any positive emotion was reported as compared to occasions with no positive emotions, participants were more likely to consume sweets (OR = 1.7, 99% CI = 1.1, 2.6), but less likely to consume pizza/fast food (OR = 0.6, 99% CI = 0.4, 1.0). Negative and positive emotions were significantly associated with food choices. mEMA methodology provides a unique opportunity to examine these associations within and between people, providing insights for individual and population-level interventions. These findings can be used to guide future longitudinal studies and to develop and test interventions that encourage healthy food choices among first-year college students and ultimately reduce the risk of weight gain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 185 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 31 17%
Student > Master 28 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Researcher 10 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 4%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 73 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 5%
Computer Science 6 3%
Other 21 11%
Unknown 82 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 January 2023.
All research outputs
#2,815,301
of 23,189,371 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,223
of 15,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,474
of 326,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#102
of 314 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,189,371 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,136 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,571 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 314 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.