Does the Creature of Habit Scale capture general habit tendencies? Lessons from anorexia nervosa.
Abstract
The Creature of Habit Scale (COHS) was designed to assess general habit tendencies, with Automaticity and Routine subscales assessing distinct features of habits. However, the Automaticity subscale is composed predominantly of eating-related items, raising questions about the scale’s construct and content validity. To evaluate this, COHS scores were compared between individuals with anorexia nervosa, restricting subtype (ANr; n = 35) and controls (n = 26), and associations with eating disorder habit strength (Self-Report Habit Index) and psychopathology (Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire; Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire) were examined. Automaticity scores were significantly lower in ANr than controls (W = 192, p < .001). Within ANr, Automaticity was negatively associated with eating disorder severity (B = -2.74, p < .001) and eating-related habits (B = −4.18, p < .001). Automaticity was positively associated with TFEQ Disinhibition across groups (B = 0.39, p < .001) and, within ANr, negatively associated with TFEQ Restraint (B = -0.21, p = .012). The Automaticity subscale of the COHS may primarily reflect disinhibited eating rather than general habitual tendencies, challenging its construct and content validity and suggesting caution in its use as a general habit measure in eating disorders and across populations.
Related
- Research progress on countertransference tendencies in nurses
- Orthorexic Eating Tendencies and Body Shape Concern in Women with Lipedema: A Controlled Cross-Sectional Study
- A sociohistorical and epistemological analysis of anorexia 150 years after the birth of the anorexia nervosa diagnosis: Is this form of suffering still in metamorphosis?
- Attitudes toward gestational weight gain and exercise avoidance tendencies: a latent profile analysis and mediation test of internalized weight bias in pregnant women
- Cinematic narrative transportation and prosocial tendencies in college students: a moderated mediation model
BibTeX
@misc{harbison2026does,
title = {{Does the Creature of Habit Scale capture general habit tendencies? Lessons from anorexia nervosa.}},
author = {Caroline Harbison and Sanne de Wit and Joseph Wonderlich and Caroline Touzeau and Alexandra Muratore and Hilde Geurts and Joanna Steinglass and Karin Foerde},
howpublished = {PsyArXiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.31234/osf.io/kx83c_v1},
url = {https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/kx83c_v1/},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Does the Creature of Habit Scale capture general habit tendencies? Lessons from anorexia nervosa.
AU - Caroline Harbison
AU - Sanne de Wit
AU - Joseph Wonderlich
AU - Caroline Touzeau
AU - Alexandra Muratore
AU - Hilde Geurts
AU - Joanna Steinglass
AU - Karin Foerde
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/23
PB - PsyArXiv
DO - 10.31234/osf.io/kx83c_v1
UR - https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/kx83c_v1/
AB - The Creature of Habit Scale (COHS) was designed to assess general habit tendencies, with Automaticity and Routine subscales assessing distinct features of habits. However, the Automaticity subscale is composed predominantly of eating-related items, raising questions about the scale’s construct and content validity. To evaluate this, COHS scores were compared between individuals with anorexia nervosa, restricting subtype (ANr; n = 35) and controls (n = 26), and associations with eating disorder habit strength (Self-Report Habit Index) and psychopathology (Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire; Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire) were examined. Automaticity scores were significantly lower in ANr than controls (W = 192, p < .001). Within ANr, Automaticity was negatively associated with eating disorder severity (B = -2.74, p < .001) and eating-related habits (B = −4.18, p < .001). Automaticity was positively associated with TFEQ Disinhibition across groups (B = 0.39, p < .001) and, within ANr, negatively associated with TFEQ Restraint (B = -0.21, p = .012). The Automaticity subscale of the COHS may primarily reflect disinhibited eating rather than general habitual tendencies, challenging its construct and content validity and suggesting caution in its use as a general habit measure in eating disorders and across populations.
ER -