An investigation of the specificity and vividness of autobiographical memories and future events produced in response to disgust-related cues among individuals with eating disorders

Bektas, Sevgi; Haslam, Rowan; Hilton, Shannon; Himmerich, Hubertus; Cardi, Valentina; Treasure, Janet; Keeler, Johanna Louise

doi:10.1186/s40337-025-01214-0

Journal of Eating Disorders

Table 6 Results of linear regression models investigating the effect of TQ-R and POBS on AMT and EFT-T outcomes in response to negative cues in the ED sample (n = 78)

From: An investigation of the specificity and vividness of autobiographical memories and future events produced in response to disgust-related cues among individuals with eating disorders

Tested Model	Dependent Variable	Adjusted R² (SE)	F-value (df = 3,74)	p-value for overall model	Independent Variable	Unstandardised Beta (SE)	ß	t	p-value for regressor
*Autobiographical Memory Task*
Model 1	Specificity	-0.014 (0.340)	0.650	0.585	(Constant)	0.684 (0.172)		3.966	< 0.001 **
					TQ-R	-0.072 (0.058)	-0.142	-1.236	0.220
					Age	0.001 (0.005)	0.029	0.251	0.803
					Ethnicity	-0.019 (0.034)	-0.063	-0.545	0.587
Model 2	Vividness	0.142 (1.195)	5.238	0.002*	(Constant)	4.718 (0.605)		7.795	< 0.001 **
					TQ-R	0.574 (0.204)	0.298	2.817	0.006 *
					Age	0.016 (0.016)	0.102	0.958	0.341
					Ethnicity	-0.303 (0.121)	-0.267	-2.511	0.014 *
Model 3	Specificity	-0.029 (0.343)	0.278	0.841	(Constant)	0.652 (0.179)		3.643	< 0.001 **
					POBS	-0.017 (0.026)	-0.075	-0.646	0.520
					Age	0.002 (0.005)	0.042	0.362	0.719
					Ethnicity	-0.018 (0.035)	-0.061	-0.521	0.604
Model 4	Vividness	0.197 (1.156)	7.304	< 0.001 **	(Constant)	4.383 (0.603)		7.262	< 0.001 **
					POBS	0.319 (0.087)	0.377	3.687	< 0.001 **
					Age	0.010 (0.016)	0.066	0.641	0.524
					Ethnicity	-0.305 (0.117)	-0.268	-2.607	0.011 *
*Episodic Future Thinking Task*
Model 5	Specificity	-0.014 (0.394)	0.647	0.587	(Constant)	0.557 (0.200)		2.788	0.007 *
					TQ-R	0.005 (0.067)	0.008	0.073	0.942
					Age	-0.004 (0.005)	-0.085	-0.730	0.468
					Ethnicity	-0.050 (0.040)	-0.144	-1.251	0.215
Model 6	Vividness	0.039 (1.426)	2.035	0.116	(Constant)	3.793 (0.772)		5.251	< 0.001 **
					TQ-R	0.587 (0.243)	0.271	2.417	0.018 *
					Age	0.010 (0.020)	0.056	0.501	0.618
					Ethnicity	-0.042 (0.144)	-0.033	-0.291	0.772
Model 7	Specificity	-0.006 (0.393)	0.848	0.472	(Constant)	0.634 (0.205)		3.092	0003 *
					POBS	-0.023 (0.029)	-0.088	-0.770	0.444
					Age	-0.004 (0.005)	-0.082	-0.709	0.480
					Ethnicity	-0.050 (0.040)	-0.146	-1.271	0.208
Model 8	Vividness	0.205 (1.297)	7.611	< 0.001 **	(Constant)	3.026 (0.677)		4.468	< 0.001 **
					POBS	0.461 (0.097)	0.483	4.745	< 0.001 **
					Age	0.003 (0.018)	0.018	0.177	0.860
					Ethnicity	-0.040 (0.131)	-0.031	-0.305	0.761

Notes.^aexperimenter rated, ^bparticipant rated, *significant at p < 0.05, **significant at p < 0. 001. Specificity refers to the proportion of specific memories/future events. Abbreviations: POBS = The Perception of Betrayal Sensitivity; SE = standard error; TQ-R = Teasing Questionnaire- Revised; ß = standardised beta

Back to article page

ISSN: 2050-2974

Contact us

General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com