Implicitly assessed attitudes toward body shape and food: the moderating roles of dietary restraint and disinhibition

Table 2 Linear regressions between attitudes toward body shape and food at mean level of eating behaviors

	Permitted foods				Forbidden foods
Regression models 1 and 2	b* ^a	SE ^b	t(116)	p	b* ^a	SE ^b	t(116)	p
AMP-assessed attitude toward body shape	.296	.090	3.29	< .01	.370	.087	4.24	< .001
Flexible cognitive control	–.175	.088	−1.98	< .05	–.107	.086	−1.25	ns
Interaction term	.178	.087	2.03	< .05	.147	.085	1.74	ns
Regression models 3 and 4	b* ^a	SE ^b	t(115)^c	p	b* ^a	SE ^b	t(116)	p
AMP-assessed attitude toward body shape	.192	.091	2.10	< .05	.318	.084	3.77	< .001
Rigid cognitive control	–.135	.094	−1.43	ns	–.086	.085	−1.00	ns
Interaction term	–.035	.091	–.38	ns	.230	.083	2.76	< .01
Regression models 5 and 6	b* ^a	SE ^b	t(115)^c	p	b* ^a	SE ^b	t(116)	p
AMP-assessed attitude toward body shape	.195	.093	2.09	< .05	.251	.086	2.94	< .01
Disinhibition	.088	.096	.92	ns	.035	.086	.41	ns
Interaction term	.067	.097	.70	ns	.352	.087	4.03	< .001

Note. N = 121. In the six multiple regression models, the proportion of “pleasant” responses on control trials in the “body shape” AMP was entered as a control variable. The moderating variable was respectively (1) flexible cognitive control dimension of restraint, (2) rigid cognitive control dimension of restraint, and (3) disinhibition, resulting in the creation of three interaction terms: (1) “AMP-assessed attitude toward body shape × flexible control”, (2) “AMP-assessed attitude toward body shape × rigid control”, and (3) “AMP-assessed attitude toward body shape × disinhibition”. ^aStandardized regression coefficients. ^bStandard errors of b*. ^cDegrees of freedom = 115, because of the exclusion of a participant with a Cook’s distance > 1.00

ISSN: 2050-2974