Personality and Individual Differences 119 (2017) 7–12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Mindfulness, personality and disordered eating

Daniel Wilson, Erin L. O'Connor ⁎
School of Psychology and Counseling, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Understanding individual differences that may predispose certain individuals to disordered eating may help
Received 3 February 2017 guide more effective screening and intervention. Furthermore, identification of how protective factors interact
Received in revised form 19 June 2017 with such individual differences may help inform interventions strategy. The current study used a self-report
Accepted 20 June 2017
questionnaire based on revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory completed by university students (N = 332)
Available online xxxx
to investigate if trait mindfulness moderated the relationship between personality and disordered eating. Results
Keywords:
showed that the Behavioural Inhibition System was associated with increased emotional and external eating be-
Mindfulness haviours whilst the Behavioural Activation System was associated with increased restrictive eating. Trait mind-
Disordered eating fulness was associated with lower levels of all disordered eating patterns. Overall, there was no significant
Personality moderation effect of mindfulness, although the interaction between mindfulness and the Behavioural Inhibition
Reinforcement sensitivity theory System for external eating approached significance, with a small effect size suggesting that the benefits of mind-
fulness may be less for those with high sensitivity to goal conflict. The findings support the use of mindfulness as
an intervention for disordered eating but highlight the importance of individual differences.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 1.1. Reinforcement sensitivity theory

Disordered eating encompasses a wide range of dysfunctional eating Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) is a biologically grounded
patterns, including fasting, dieting, vomiting, over-eating, binge-eating, theory of personality, based on the sensitivity of brain systems that re-
taking laxatives and diet pills (Croll, Neumark-Sztainer, Story, & Ireland, spond to reward and punishment that mediate approach and avoidant
2002). The effects of such eating patterns include physical deficiencies behaviour respectively (Smillie, Loxton, & Avery, 2013). The original
(growth retardation, weight fluctuations, poor bone health); nutrient model (o-RST; Gray, 1970) proposed two primary motivation systems;
deficiencies; (Bryla, 2003); and adverse psychological effects (e.g., psy- the Behavioural Inhibition System (o-BIS), proposed to mediate avoid-
chological distress, depression, anxiety, substance abuse and suicide); ance behaviour in response to negatively valenced stimuli; and the Be-
(Neumark-Sztainer, Story, Dixon, & Murray, 1998). There is evidence havioural Activation System (o-BAS), attributed to mediating approach
that disordered eating is a pathway to more serious health related con- behaviour in response to rewarding conditioned stimuli (Pickering &
cerns including an increased risk of developing more severe eating-re- Smillie, 2008).
lated problems; clinically diagnosed eating disorders (Bryla, 2003); The theory has been revised (Revised Reinforcement Sensitivity
and obesity (Desai, Miller, Staples, & Bravender, 2008). Early identifica- Theory (r-RST); Gray & McNaughton, 2000) to incorporate a third sys-
tion and effective treatment of disordered eating is important for reduc- tem, the Fight/Flight/Freeze System (FFFS). The BAS remained largely
ing the risk and impact of these more severe outcomes (Neumark- unchanged by the revision, the major difference being that r-BAS now
Sztainer et al., 2006). Research has found that individual differences mediates approach behaviour towards all rewarding stimuli, rather
can predict those at risk for disordered eating (e.g. Loxton & Dawe, than just conditioned stimuli as with o-BAS (Smillie, Pickering &
2006), and mindfulness has received growing support as an effective in- Jackson, 2006). The biggest revision to RST was the partitioning of the
tervention (e.g. Atkinson & Wade, 2014). o-BIS into two separate systems; the r-BIS, which is related to anxiety;
and the FFFS, which is related to fear (Corr, Deyoung, & McNaughton,
2013). The FFFS takes on the role of mediating avoidance behaviour in
⁎ Corresponding author at: Queensland University of Technology, Ring Road, Kelvin
response to all aversive stimuli, whereas the role of the r-BIS is conflict
Grove, QLD 4059, Australia resolution between the r-BAS and FFFS in situations presenting both re-
E-mail address: [email protected] (E.L. O'Connor). warding and aversive stimuli.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.06.033
0191-8869/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
8 D. Wilson, E.L. O'Connor / Personality and Individual Differences 119 (2017) 7–12

1.2. RST and disordered eating relationship between mindfulness and psychological distress, and
mindfulness moderated the relationship between FFFS and psychologi-
Research investigating RST and disordered eating symptomology cal distress. The authors concluded that both results were consistent
among non-clinical populations has yielded consistent results, including with the view that high mindfulness can protect against the adverse
positive correlations between o-BIS and o-BAS sensitivity and disor- psychological outcomes of high threat sensitivity.
dered eating symptomology (e.g., Hasking, 2006; Hennegan, Loxton, &
Mattar, 2013; Loxton & Dawe, 2001, 2006, 2007). The only study in 1.5. Hypotheses
this area to use a r-RST measure found that r-BIS and FFFS were positive-
ly associated with disordered over-eating behaviours (Emotional and Informed by Hamill et al. (2015) and Harnett et al. (2016), it was hy-
external eating; Hennegan et al., 2013). Additionally, r-BAS was found pothesized that mindfulness would moderate the relationship between
to have no relationship to emotional eating (eating to help cope with subsystems of r-RST and disordered eating, as depicted in Fig. 1. Specif-
extremes of emotion), but a positive relationship with external eating ically, it was hypothesized that as mindfulness increased, the relation-
(eating in response to the sight and/or smell of palatable food). ship between r-BIS and FFFS sensitivity and disordered eating
symptomology would decrease.
1.3. Mindfulness and disordered eating
2. Methods
Studies have consistently shown that trait mindfulness is inversely
related to disordered eating symptomology (e.g., Lavender, Gratz, & 2.1. Participants and procedure
Tull, 2011; Lavender, Jardin, & Anderson, 2009; Masuda & Wendell,
2010). Additionally, mindfulness-based interventions are accruing evi- Students (N = 332, 62% female, mean age 20.77 years) from an Aus-
dence as effective treatments for eating disorders (e.g., Atkinson & tralian University (QUT); were recruited to complete the questionnaire
Wade, 2014; Masuda & Hill, 2013). However, intervention studies and were offered either course credit or the chance to go into the draw
show that whilst some experience benefit from mindfulness for disor- for a $50 gift voucher from a national department store. The question-
dered eating, many do not (Atkinson & Wade, 2014). Investigation naire was completed online in the participants own time. The study re-
into r-RST may be of benefit to elucidate how individual differences in- ceived ethical approval by the QUT Human Research Ethics Committee.
fluence the efficacy of mindfulness as an effective intervention for re-
ducing disordered eating. 2.2. Measures and internal consistencies

1.4. Mindfulness, RST and psychological outcomes 2.2.1. r-RST

The Jackson Five (Jackson, 2009) is a 30-item questionnaire measur-
There has been preliminary research using RST to investigate the re- ing the five r-RST subsets of r-BAS (α = 0.78), r-BIS (α = 0.75), Fight,
lationship between mindfulness on psychological outcomes. First, Flight and Freeze (α = 0.74). The scores for the Fight, Flight and Freeze
Sauer, Walach, and Kohls (2011) explored o-BIS as a mediator of the subsets were combined to form a total measure of FFFS.
pathway between mindfulness and psychological wellbeing, finding
that o-BIS mediated the relationship between the mindfulness and psy- 2.2.2. Mindfulness
chological wellbeing. On this basis, Sauer et al. (2011) concluded that The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer, Smith,
mindfulness produced beneficial effects on wellbeing by reducing o- Hopkins, Krietemeyer, & Toney, 2006) is a 39-item self-report question-
BIS sensitivity. However, this conclusion is incongruous with the re- naire measuring five mindfulness facets consisting of observing (α =
search that showed o-BIS (and o-BAS) were stable, enduring traits 0.73), describing (α = 0.88), acting with awareness (α = 0.86), non-
exhibiting minimal change over time. For instance, longitudinal studies judging of inner experience (α = 0.90), and non-reactivity to inner ex-
by Takahashi et al. (2007) and Braams, van Duijvenvoorde, Peper, and perience (α = 0.79). As this study focused on a university student sam-
Crone (2015) demonstrated stable measurements of o-RST across sam- ple, the Observe facet was excluded from the analyses in line with
pling points. Harrison, Sternheim, O'Hara, Oldershaw, and Schmidt recommendations by Williams, Dalgleish, Karl, and Kuyken (2014)
(2016) measured o-RST in a group of clinically-diagnosed ED patients that this four-factor mindfulness model is a superior measure of mind-
both before and after treatment, finding no significant change in o- fulness in adult samples without specific meditating experience.
RST. On the basis of this, it could be interpreted that whilst treatment ef-
fects are unlikely to change the sensitivity of RST subsystems, they may 2.2.3. Restrictive eating
act to moderate the effects of such sensitivity by allowing greater self- The Eating Attitudes Test (EAT-26; Garner, Olmsted, Bohr, &
regulation capacity. Garfinkel, 1982) is a 26-item measure of disordered eating behaviours
Noting the limitations of the conclusions drawn by Sauer et al. and attitudes, and consists of three subscales, bulimia and food preoccu-
(2011), Hamill, Pickett, Amsbaugh, and Aho (2015) argued that mind- pation, oral control and dieting. The Eat-26 was derived from studies of
fulness would act by mitigating the effects of o-BIS on adverse psycho- Anorexia Nervosa (AN) populations, and designed for clinical use to
logical outcomes, rather than changing the sensitivity of o-BIS itself. measure the symptoms of AN. As designed, items are scored on a 6-
The authors found the mindfulness facet Acceptance moderated the re- point Likert scale ranging from ‘Always’ to ‘Never’, with items scored as
lationship between o-BIS reactivity and depression and anxiety, while 3-2-1-0-0-0. However, in subclinical populations, recommendations
Non-reactivity moderated the relationship between o-BIS and stress.
Reese, Zielinski, and Veilleux (2015) found mindfulness mediated
the relationship between o-RST and emotional dysregulation. They con-
cluded that high o-BIS would lead to emotional dysregulation through
underutilization of mindfulness skills, although justification was lacking
as to why high o-BIS would be associated with underutilization of mind-
fulness skills. They did not test a moderation model of mindfulness.
Harnett, Reid, Loxton, and Lee (2016) presented the only study, to
the authors' knowledge, to use r-RST to investigate the relationship be-
tween mindfulness, RST and psychological distress (as measured by the Fig. 1. Moderation model tested. Mindfulness is expected to moderate the relationship
global score on the DASS). They found that FFFS mediated the between r-RST subsystems and disordered eating measures.
 D. Wilson, E.L. O'Connor / Personality and Individual Differences 119 (2017) 7–12 9

Table 1 external eating, but correlated negatively at a significant level with

Means and standard deviations for reinforcement sensitivity, mindfulness and disordered Emotional eating and the Eat-26. The FFMQ4 displayed a significant
eating variables.
negative correlation with all measures of disordered eating. As expect-
Criterion Mean SD ed, measures of, r-BIS and FFFS correlated negatively with the FFMQ4,
Age 20.77 6.71 whereas r-BAS correlated positively.
r-BAS 3.75 0.55
r-BIS 3.65 0.60 3.1. Hierarchical multiple regression
FFFS 2.93 0.44
FFMQ4 3.07 0.41
EM 2.93 0.94 To test if mindfulness would predict disordered eating above and be-
EX 3.44 0.70 yond personality, multiple hierarchical regression analyses were run for
Eat-26 2.59 0.68 each measure of disordered eating, as shown in Table 3. The same meth-
Note: r-BAS = Jackson 5 Behavioural Activation System; r-BIS = Jackson 5 Behavioural In- od was followed for the three regressions. Gender was entered in the
hibition System; FFFS = Jackson 5 Fight Flight Freeze System, FFMQ = Combined Four first block as a covariate, on the basis of being significantly correlated
Facet Mindfulness Score (observe, describe, acting with awareness, non-judging of inner with the three outcome variables. Although age was only significantly
experience, non-reactivity to inner experience); DEBQ = Dutch Eating Behaviours Ques-
correlated with external eating, it was included as a covariate in all re-
tionnaire; EX = External Eating Scale, EM = Emotional Eating Scale; Eat-26 = Eating At-
titudes Test. gressions for consistency. The models run with emotional and the
EAT-26 displayed the same pattern of results with and without control-
ling for age. In the second block, r-BAS, r-BIS and FFFS were entered. In
have been made that scoring items as 6-5-4-3-2-1 improves the psycho- the third block, FFMQ4 was added. The results are presented in Table 3.
metric properties of the scale (Schoemaker, Van Strien, & Van der Staak, The predictors of emotional eating in the final model were r-BIS (sr2 =
1994). Consequently, for the current study, items were scored according 0.01), and FFMQ4 (sr2 = 0.02). In the final model for external eating, r-
to these recommendations and averaged to form a mean score for re- BIS (sr2 = 0.03) was the only significant predictor. The significant pre-
strictive disordered eating (α = 0.89). dictors in the final model for the Eat-26 were r-BAS (sr2 = 0.01), and
FFMQ4 (sr2 = 0.03).
2.2.4. External and emotional eating
The External (α = 0.94) and Emotional (α = 0.85) Eating subscales 3.2. Moderation analysis
of the Dutch Eating Behaviours Questionnaire (DEBQ; Van Strien,
Frijters, Bergers, & Defares, 1986) were used. These subscales are self- Model 1 of the SPSS PROCESS macro by Hayes (2013) was used to
report questionnaires that measure the tendency to eat excessively as test the moderation hypothesis Following recommendations by Hayes
a result of external stimuli, rather than internal sensations of hunger (2013), investigation of a moderation was performed despite instances
(External) or the tendency to eat excessively in response to extremes of the predictors not exhibiting significant associations with the DV's in
of emotion (Emotional). the previous regressions. A series of analyses were run using each type
of disordered eating as the criterion, the FFMQ4 as a moderator, and ei-
3. Results ther r-BIS or FFFS as a predictor variable. Age and gender were entered
as covariates.
Descriptive statistics are provided in Tables 1 and 2. The eating be-
haviours of the sample were in line with previous research involving 3.2.1. Emotional eating
similar populations. Using the original scoring (0-0-0-1-2-3), the cur- Using r-BIS as the predictor variable, FFMQ4 as the moderator vari-
rent sample recorded a mean score of 9.53 (SD = 9.44) on the Eat-26 able and the interaction term explained 12% of the variance in Emotion-
(compared to 9.9 (SD = (9.2) in Garner et al., 1982). Emotional and ex- al Eating, R = 0.35, R2 = 0.12, F(5, 326) = 9.16, p b 0.001. In the final
ternal eating were also similar to previous studies (e.g., M = 2.86, SD = model, FFMQ4, b = −0.39, 95% CI [−0.61, −0.17], t(326) = −3.81, p
0.92, and M = 3.39, SD = 0.66 for emotional and external respectively = 0.001, sr2 = 0.01, and r-BIS, b = 0.18, 95% CI [0.00, 0.36], t(326) =
in Hennegan et al. (2013)). Of the r-RST measures, r-BIS was significant- 2.00, p = 0.048, sr2 = 0.04, were significant predictors of Emotional Eat-
ly positively correlated with External and Emotional eating, and whilst ing, however, there was no significant moderating effect of the FFMQ4.
the r-BIS/Eat-26 correlation did not reach significance, it was also posi- A model using FFFS as the predictor variable, FFMQ4 as the modera-
tive. The FFFS displayed significant positive correlations with the three tor variable and the interaction term explained 11.4% of the variance in
measures of disordered eating. Last, r-BAS had no association with Emotional Eating, R = 0.34, R2 = 0.11, F(5, 326) = 6.85, p b 0.001. In the

Table 2
Bivariate correlations and scale reliabilities for revised RST measures, mindfulness facets and disordered eating measures (N = 332).

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Age −0.07 0.06 −0.17⁎⁎ −0.20⁎⁎ 0.11⁎ 0.01 −0.12⁎ −0.02

2 Gender −0.01 −0.09 0.24⁎⁎ −0.11⁎ 0.25⁎⁎ 0.15⁎⁎ 0.17⁎⁎
3 r-BAS 0.00 −0.21⁎⁎ 0.37⁎⁎ −0.14⁎ −0.03 −0.19⁎⁎
4 r-BIS 0.25⁎⁎ −0.16⁎⁎ 0.12⁎ 0.20⁎⁎ 0.08
5 FFFS −0.41⁎⁎ 0.19⁎⁎ 0.18⁎⁎ 0.15⁎⁎
6 FFMQ4 −0.23⁎⁎ −0.15⁎⁎ −0.29⁎⁎
7 DEBQ – 0.61⁎⁎ 0.30⁎⁎
EM
8 DEBQ – 0.08
EX
9 Eat-26

Note: r-BAS = Jackson 5 Behavioural Activation System; r-BIS = Jackson 5 Behavioural Inhibition System; FFFS = Jackson 5 Fight Flight Freeze System; FFMQ4 = Combined Four Facet
Mindfulness Score (Observe, Describe, Act with Awareness, Non-judgment of Inner Experience, Non-reactivity to Inner Experience); DEBQ = Dutch Eating Behaviours Questionnaire; EX
= External Eating Scale, EM = Emotional Eating Scale; EAT-26 = Eating Attitudes Test.
⁎ Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
⁎⁎ Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
10 D. Wilson, E.L. O'Connor / Personality and Individual Differences 119 (2017) 7–12

Table 3
Multiple hierarchical regression for r-RST subscales and mindfulness predicting disordered eating.

Criterion Predictor B 95% CI SE β R2 ΔR2 sr2

Lower Upper

Emotional Block 1
Model summary 0.07
Gender 0.58 0.34 0.82 0.12 0.26⁎⁎⁎ 0.07
Age 0.01 −0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00
Block 2
Model summary 0.11 0.04⁎⁎⁎
r-BAS −0.20 −0.38 −0.02 0.09 −0.12⁎ 0.01
r-BIS 0.19 0.02 0.36 0.09 0.12⁎ 0.01
FFFS 0.18 −0.06 0.42 0.12 0.09 0.00
Block 3
Model summary 0.13 0.02⁎⁎
r-BAS −0.12 −0.31 0.06 0.01 −0.07 0.00
r-BIS 0.17 0.01 0.34 0.09 0.11⁎ 0.01
FFFS 0.08 −0.17 0.33 0.13 0.04 0.00
FFMQ4 −0.30 −0.54 −0.07 0.12 −0.15⁎⁎ 0.02
External Block 1
Model summary 0.03
Gender 0.24 0.05 0.145 0.10 0.14⁎⁎ 0.02
Age −0.01 −0.02 −0.113 0.01 −0.10 0.01
Block 2
Model summary 0.08 0.05⁎⁎⁎
r-BAS −0.01 −0.14 −0.03 0.07 −0.01 0.00
r-BIS 0.20 0.07 0.20 0.07 0.18⁎⁎ 0.03
FFFS 0.15 −0.04 0.18 0.09 0.10 0.01
Block 3
Model summary 0.08 0.01
r-BAS 0.03 −0.12 0.17 0.07 0.02 0.00
r-BIS 0.19 0.07 0.32 0.07 0.17⁎⁎ 0.03
FFFS 0.01 −0.01 0.29 0.10 0.06 0.00
FFMQ4 −0.14 −0.32 0.04 0.09 −0.10 0.01
Eat-26 Block 1
Model summary
Gender 0.28 0.01 0.46 0.09 0.17⁎⁎ 0.03 0.03
Age −0.00 −0.01 0.01 0.01 −0.01 0.00
Block 2
Model summary 0.08 0.05⁎⁎⁎
r-BAS −0.22 −0.36 −0.09 0.07 −0.18⁎⁎⁎ 0.03
r-BIS 0.10 −0.02 0.23 0.06 0.09 0.01
FFFS 0.10 −0.08 0.28 0.09 0.07 0.00
Block 3
Model summary 0.11 0.03⁎⁎⁎
r-BAS −0.15 −0.29 −0.01 0.07 −0.12⁎ 0.01
r-BIS 0.09 −0.04 0.21 0.06 0.08 0.01
FFFS 0.00 −0.19 0.19 0.10 0.00 0.00
FFMQ4 −0.30 −0.47 −0.13 0.09 −0.20⁎⁎⁎ 0.03

Note: BCa = Bias Corrected and Accelerated Confidence Intervals; r-BAS = Jackson 5 Behavioural Activation System; r-BIS = Jackson 5 Behavioural Inhibition System; FFFS = Jackson 5
Fight Flight Freeze System, FFMQ4 = Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire Combined 4 Scale Score; Eat-26 = Eating Attitudes Test.
⁎ Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
⁎⁎ Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
⁎⁎⁎ Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed).

final model, FFMQ4 significantly predicted Emotional Eating, b = at low levels of mindfulness (shown in Fig. 2), at a mean score of b2.72
− 0.35, 95% CI [− 0.59, − 0.12], t(326) = − 2.96, p = 0.003, sr2 = on the FFMQ4, b = 0.14, 95% CI [0.00, 0.27], t(326) = 1.97, p = 0.05. For
0.03. However, FFFS was not a significant predictor of Emotional Eating, increasing mindfulness scores above this threshold, the relationship be-
and there was no significant moderating effect of the FFMQ4. tween r-BIS and External remained significant for all subsequent levels
of FFMQ4. This follow-up analysis revealed a different direction to the
3.2.2. External eating hypothesized moderation relationship. Instead of the relationship be-
Using r-BIS as the predictor variable and FFMQ4 as the moderator tween r-BIS and external eating decreasing as the FFMQ4 increased,
variable, as well as the interaction term created a model that explained the results show that the magnitude of the effect that r-BIS had on Ex-
9.6% of the variance in external eating, R = 0.31, R2 = 0.10, F(5, 326) = ternal increased as a result of corresponding increases in FFMQ4.
6.93, p b 0.001. The r-BIS significantly predicted external eating, b = Using FFFS as the predictor variable, FFMQ4 as the moderator vari-
0.21, 95% CI [0.09, 0.34], t(326) = 3.34, p = 0.001, sr2 = 0.03. The R2 able, along with the interaction term produced a model that explained
change from the interaction was not significant, R2Change = 0.016, F(1, 6.4% of the variance in external eating, R = 0.25, R2 = 0.06, F(5, 326)
326) = 3.71, p = 0.055, sr2 = 0.016. = 2.82, p = 0.017. None of the variables were significant in the final
Given the moderation bordered on significance, and in light of sug- model, and there was no significant moderating effect of the FFMQ4.
gestions that the test of the interaction term is typically low powered
(Aguinis, 1995), follow-up analysis using the Johnsen-Neyman tech- 3.2.3. Eat-26
nique as recommended by Hayes (2013). This analysis revealed that A model using r-BIS as the predictor variable, FFMQ4 as the moder-
the relationship between r-BIS and external eating was non-significant ator variable and the interaction term explained 10.2% of the variance in
 D. Wilson, E.L. O'Connor / Personality and Individual Differences 119 (2017) 7–12 11

Hennegan et al., 2013; Masuda & Wendell, 2010). In the current study,
r-BIS and FFFS were positively associated with the three disordered eat-
ing measures, with r-BIS/Eat-26 correlation the only non-significant re-
sult. The involvement of FFFS but not r-BIS for the Eat-26 suggests that
avoidance of gaining an undesirable body shape (i.e., punishment sensi-
tivity; FFFS) but not anxiety/goal conflict (r-BIS), is a contributor to re-
strictive disordered eating. For emotional and external eating
however, results suggest both punishment sensitivity and goal conflict
(r-BIS) are important contributing factors. Mindfulness (FFMQ4) was
significantly negatively correlated with all measures of disordered eat-
ing, in line with previous research (Masuda, Price, & Latzman, 2012;
Tak et al., 2015).

4.1. Limitations

There were several limitations to the current study. First, the meth-
odology of collecting self-report data across one time period means the
study may include common method variance, and causal effects be-
tween the variables cannot be established. Second, the sample popula-
tion was limited in diversity (consisting of mostly young, female
undergraduate students), and thus results may not be generalizable
Fig. 2. The effect of mindfulness on the relationship between r-BIS and external eating,
such that the magnitude of the effect increases as mindfulness does. for the wider population. Additionally, depression and anxiety, as well
as personality disorders such as borderline personality disorder are fac-
tors of potential influence when measuring personality variables, and
the Eat-26, R = 0.32, R2 = 0.10, F(5, 326) = 7.99, p b 0.001. The FFMQ4
such factors could warrant measurement and controlling for in future
was a significant predictor of the Eat-26, b = − 0.37, 95% CI [− 0.52,
research. Further, whilst the Jackson 5 was the most valid measure of
−0.21], t(326) = −4.69, p b 0.001, sr2 = 0.06. r-BIS was not a signifi-
r-RST available, the r-BIS scale in this measure has been criticised for
cant predictor of the Eat-26, and there was no significant moderating ef-
poor face validity (Corr, 2016). Last, Markett, Montag, and Reuter
fect of the FFMQ4.
(2014) highlight the limitations of using self-report scales to measure
Using FFFS as the predictor variable, FFMQ4 as the moderator vari-
RST variables, and suggest using behavioural measures of RST. Future
able as well as the interaction term explained 9.7% of the variance in
research could address these measurement issues.
the Eat-26, R = 0.31, R2 = 0.10, F(5, 326) = 6.77, p b 0.001. The
FFMQ4 was a significant predictor of the Eat-26, b = − 0.37, 95% CI
[− 0.54, − 0.21], t(326) = − 4.40, p b 0.001, sr2 = 0.05, however, r- 5. Conclusions
BIS was not a significant predictor of the Eat-26, and there was no signif-
icant moderating effect of the FFMQ4. This study makes the novel contribution of investigating the rela-
tionship between RST, mindfulness and disordered eating. Results sug-
4. Discussion gested that highly sensitive r-BIS and FFFS are positively associated with
disordered eating behaviours, whilst trait mindfulness was negatively
The results failed to show support for the moderation hypothesis. associated with disordered eating patterns. Whilst there was no signif-
The r-BIS/FFMQ4 interaction for External was very close to significance icant moderation interaction found, the interaction with r-BIS and ex-
(p = 0.055), with a small effect size (sr2 = 0.016). Follow-up analysis ternal eating bordered on significance, with high r-BIS sensitivity
investigating the direction of this relationship showed the magnitude appearing to inhibit mindfulness from exerting its salutatory effects.
of the effect r-BIS had on External became greater as mindfulness in- This result reflects the proportionately greater influence of personality
creased, rather than lesser, differing from both the hypothesis and on disordered eating compared to mindfulness.
prior findings (e.g., Harnett et al., 2016). This finding indicates that Consequently, the current results have implications for clinical prac-
mindfulness may be a protective factor for external eating, but only tice. It would appear mindfulness is an appropriate intervention for dis-
for those with low r-BIS. ordered eating in most situations. However, individual differences
The results of the current study present two novel findings. First, the should inform such interventions, as individuals with high r-BIS sensi-
aversive effect of increasing r-BIS outweighed the protective element of tivity may benefit from different strategies. Continuing from the current
mindfulness. Those with high r-BIS showed high external eating, inde- study, future research could further investigate how individual differ-
pendent of their FFMQ4 score. These results differ from previous re- ences influence the longitudinal effect of mindfulness-based interven-
search that has suggested sufficiently high mindfulness can protect tions for disordered eating.
against the effects of highly sensitive r-RST (Harnett et al., 2016).
Thus, it would appear heightened sensitivity of r-BIS has a stronger in- References
fluence on external eating behaviours than the protective element of
mindfulness. Aguinis, H. (1995). Statistical power with moderated multiple regression in management
research. Journal of Management, 21(6), 1141–1158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
Second, high levels of mindfulness are required for low external eat- 014920639502100607.
ing. In the current study, those with low FFMQ4 displayed high external Atkinson, M. J., & Wade, T. D. (2016). Does mindfulness have potential in eating disorders
eating, regardless of r-BIS levels. Those with high mindfulness and low prevention? A preliminary controlled trial with young adult women. Early
Intervention in Psychiatry, 10(3), 234–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/eip.12160.
r-BIS showed lower external eating measures. This differs to previous
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report
research of other outcome behaviours, where low sensitivity to r-RST assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27–45.
subscales was sufficient for low measures of psychological distress http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191105283504.
(Harnett et al., 2016). Braams, B. R., van Duijvenvoorde, A. C. K., Peper, J. S., & Crone, E. A. (2015). Longitudinal
changes in adolescent risk-taking: A comprehensive study of neural responses to re-
The correlations reported were largely in line with previous findings wards, pubertal development, and risk-taking behavior. Journal of Neuroscience,
linking RST measures and mindfulness and disordered eating (e.g., 35(18), 7226–7238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4764-14.2015.
12 D. Wilson, E.L. O'Connor / Personality and Individual Differences 119 (2017) 7–12

Bryla, K. Y. (2003). Disordered eating among female adolescents: Prevalence, risk factors, Loxton, N. J., & Dawe, S. (2007). How do dysfunctional eating and hazardous drinking
and consequences. Health Educator, 35(2), 25. women perform on behavioural measures of reward and punishment sensitivity?
Corr, P. J. (2016). Reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality questionnaires: Struc- Personality and Individual Differences, 42(6), 1163–1172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
tural survey with recommendations. Personality and Individual Differences, 89, paid.2006.09.031.
60–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.045. Markett, S., Montag, C., & Reuter, M. (2014). In favor of behavior: On the importance of
Corr, P. J., Deyoung, C. G., & McNaughton, N. (2013). Motivation and personality: A neu- experimental paradigms in testing predictions from Gray's revised reinforcement
ropsychological perspective. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), sensitivity theory. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/
158–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12016. fnsys.2014.00184 (SEP).
Croll, J., Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., & Ireland, M. (2002). Prevalence and risk and Masuda, A., & Hill, M. L. (2013). Mindfulness as therapy for disordered eating: A system-
protective factors related to disordered eating behaviors among adolescents: Rela- atic review. Neuropsychiatry, 3(4), 433. http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/npy.13.36.
tionship to gender and ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31(2), 166–175. Masuda, A., Price, M., & Latzman, R. D. (2012). Mindfulness moderates the relationship
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00368-3. between disordered eating cognitions and disordered eating behaviors in a non-clin-
Desai, M. N., Miller, W. C., Staples, B., & Bravender, T. (2008). Risk factors associated with ical college sample. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 34(1),
overweight and obesity in college students. Journal of American College Health, 57(1), 107–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10862-011-9252-7.
109–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JACH.57.1.109-114. Masuda, A., & Wendell, J. W. (2010). Mindfulness mediates the relation between disor-
Garner, D. M., Olmsted, M. P., Bohr, Y., & Garfinkel, P. E. (1982). The eating attitudes test: dered eating-related cognitions and psychological distress. Eating Behaviors, 11(4),
Psychometric features and clinical correlates. Psychological Medicine, 12(4), 871–878. 293–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2010.07.001.
Gray, J. A. (1970). The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion. Behaviour Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., Dixon, L. B., & Murray, D. M. (1998). Adolescents engag-
Research and Therapy, 8(3), 249–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0005- ing in unhealthy weight control behaviors: Are they at risk for other health-compris-
7967(70)90069-0. ing behaviors? American Journal of Public Health, 88(6), 952–955.
Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). The neuropsychology of anxiety. Oxford: Oxford Uni- Neumark-Sztainer, D., Wall, M., Guo, J., Story, M., Haines, J., & Eisenberg, M. (2006). Obe-
versity Press. sity, disordered eating, and eating disorders in a longitudinal study of adolescents:
Hamill, T. S., Pickett, S. M., Amsbaugh, H. M., & Aho, K. M. (2015). Mindfulness and accep- How do dieters fare 5 years later? Journal of the American Dietetic Association,
tance in relation to Behavioral Inhibition System sensitivity and psychological dis- 106(4), 559–568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2006.01.003.
tress. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 24–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. Pickering, A. D., & Smillie, L. D. (2008). The behavioural activation system: Challenges and
paid.2014.08.007. opportunities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 120–154.
Harnett, P. H., Reid, N., Loxton, N. J., & Lee, N. (2016). The relationship between trait mind- Reese, E. D., Zielinski, M. J., & Veilleux, J. C. (2015). Facets of mindfulness mediate behav-
fulness, personality and psychological distress: A revised reinforcement sensitivity ioral inhibition systems and emotion dysregulation. Personality and Individual
theory perspective. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 100–105. http://dx.doi. Differences, 72, 41–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.008.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.085. Sauer, S., Walach, H., & Kohls, N. (2011). Gray's behavioural inhibition system as a medi-
Harrison, A., Sternheim, L., O'Hara, C., Oldershaw, A., & Schmidt, U. (2016). Do reward and ator of mindfulness towards well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(4),
punishment sensitivity change after treatment for anorexia nervosa? Personality and 506–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.11.019.
Individual Differences, 96, 40–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.051. Schoemaker, C., Van Strien, T., & Van der Staak, C. (1994). Validation of the eating disor-
Hasking, P. A. (2006). Reinforcement sensitivity, coping, disordered eating and drinking ders inventory in a nonclinical population using transformed and untransformed re-
behaviour in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(4), 677–688. sponses. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 15(4), 387–393.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.017. Smillie, L. D., Loxton, N. J., & Avery, R. E. (2013). Reinforcement sensitivity theory, research,
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional Process analysis: applications, and future. The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Individual Differences,
A regression-based approach. US: Guilford Publications Inc. M.U.A. 101–131.
Hennegan, J. M., Loxton, N. J., & Mattar, A. (2013). Great expectations. Eating expectancies Smillie, L. D., Pickering, A. D., & Jackson, C. J. (2006). The new reinforcement sensitivity
as mediators of reinforcement sensitivity and eating. Appetite, 71, 81–88. http://dx. theory: Implications for personality measurement. Personality and Social Psychology
doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.07.013. Review, 10(4), 320–335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_3.
Jackson, C. J. (2009). Jackson-5 scales of revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST) Tak, S. R., Hendrieckx, C., Nefs, G., Nyklíček, I., Speight, J., & Pouwer, F. (2015). The associ-
and their application to dysfunctional real world outcomes. Journal of Research in ation between types of eating behaviour and dispositional mindfulness in adults with
Personality, 43(4), 556–569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.007. diabetes. Results from Diabetes MILES. The Netherlands. Appetite, 87, 288–295. http://
Lavender, J. M., Gratz, K. L., & Tull, M. T. (2011). Exploring the relationship between facets dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.01.006.
of mindfulness and eating pathology in women. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 40(3), Takahashi, Y., Yamagata, S., Kijima, N., Shigemasu, K., Ono, Y., & Ando, J. (2007). Continuity
174–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2011.555485. and change in behavioral inhibition and activation systems: A longitudinal behavioral
Lavender, J. M., Jardin, B. F., & Anderson, D. A. (2009). Bulimic symptoms in undergraduate genetic study. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1616–1625. http://dx.doi.
men and women: Contributions of mindfulness and thought suppression. Eating org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.030.
Behaviors, 10(4), 228–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2009.07.002. Van Strien, T., Frijters, J. E. R., Bergers, G. P. A., & Defares, P. B. (1986). The Dutch eating
Loxton, N. J., & Dawe, S. (2001). Alcohol abuse and dysfunctional eating in adolescent behavior questionnaire (DEBQ) for assessment of restrained, emotional, and external
girls: The influence of individual differences in sensitivity to reward and punishment. eating behavior. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 5(2), 295–315.
International Journal of Eating Disorders, 29(4), 455. Williams, M. J., Dalgleish, T., Karl, A., & Kuyken, W. (2014). Examining the factor structures
Loxton, N. J., & Dawe, S. (2006). Reward and punishment sensitivity in dysfunctional eat- of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire and the self-compassion scale.
ing and hazardous drinking women: Associations with family risk. Appetite, 47(3), Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 407–418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035566.
361–371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2006.05.014.