| Literature DB >> 21767360 |
Eliana V Carraça1, Marlene N Silva, David Markland, Paulo N Vieira, Cláudia S Minderico, Luís B Sardinha, Pedro J Teixeira.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Successful weight management involves the regulation of eating behavior. However, the specific mechanisms underlying its successful regulation remain unclear. This study examined one potential mechanism by testing a model in which improved body image mediated the effects of obesity treatment on eating self-regulation. Further, this study explored the role of different body image components.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21767360 PMCID: PMC3150233 DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-8-75
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act ISSN: 1479-5868 Impact factor: 6.457
Figure 1Partial least squares model. Values in the paths represent the bootstrapped PLS estimates; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE) and correlations among factors in the measurement model
| Correlations | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Treatment (I vs C) | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| 2. | .95 | .91 | -.48 | ||||||||||||
| 3. Social Physique Anxiety | .87 | .52 | -.46 | .83 | |||||||||||
| 4. Body Concerns | .95 | .51 | -.45 | .98 | .71 | ||||||||||
| 5. Evaluative BI | 1 | 1 | -.41 | .36 | .37 | .32 | |||||||||
| 6. | .94 | .75 | .41 | -.65 | -.58 | -.62 | -.37 | ||||||||
| 7. Flexible Restraint | .76 | .51 | .29 | -.46 | -.36 | -.46 | -.31 | .57 | |||||||
| 8. Eating Self-Efficacy | .94 | .53 | .39 | -.61 | -.56 | -.57 | -.37 | .97 | .46 | ||||||
| 9. Perceived Hunger | .77 | .53 | .29 | -.44 | -.32 | -.45b | -.18a | .68 | .45 | .54 | |||||
| 10. | .83 | .79 | .33 | -.57 | -.51 | -.55 | -.26 | .78 | .39 | .65 | .57 | ||||
| 11. Habitual Disin. | .80 | .67 | .23b | -.48 | -.43 | -.45 | -.21b | .49 | .36 | .42 | .35 | .72 | |||
| 12. Emotional Disin. | .82 | .60 | .22b | -.40 | -.36 | -.38 | -.20a | .59 | .22 | .49 | .33 | .82 | .43 | ||
| 13. Situational Disin. | .79 | .56 | .33 | -.51 | -.45 | -.49 | -.22b | .75 | .38 | .62 | .66 | .83 | .45 | .49 | |
Note. N = 170. CR is composite reliability; AVE is average variance extracted; diagonal entries in bold are the square root of AVE; other values are correlation coefficients. Variables in italic are higher-order variables. a Correlations significant at p < .05; b Correlations significant at p < .01; All remaining correlations were significant at p < .001.
Significant indirect effects and tests of mediation in the structural model
| Relationship | Indirect effect a | Total effect | Direct effect b | Effect ratio | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| From | To | Intervening variable | ||||
| Treatment | Flexible Restraint | Investment BI | .21*** | .30*** | .08 | .70 |
| Treatment | Eating self-efficacy | Investment BI | .27*** | .39*** | .13 | .69 |
| Treatment | Eating self-efficacy | Evaluative BI | .10** | .40*** | .30*** | .25 |
| Treatment | Disinhibition | Investment BI | .26*** | .33*** | .06 | .79 |
| Treatment | Perceived hunger | Investment BI | .19*** | .30*** | .10 | .63 |
Note. N = 170. BI: Body Image. All values represent the bootstrapped PLS estimates. a Whenever there is more than one intervening variable for each IV->DV path, the total indirect effect results from the sum of the indirect effect through each intervening variable. b Direct effect controlling for the mediator. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.