Emotional eating, characterised by eating in response to emotional states rather than physiological hunger, has been associated with stress, emotion-regulation difficulties, and psychological distress. Evidence across populations is methodologically heterogeneous, and it remains unclear whether emotional eating consistently functions as a coping response. This systematic review synthesised quantitative evidence examining emotional eating in relation to stress, negative affect, and emotion-regulation processes across populations and study designs. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Web of Science Core Collection were systematically searched. Nineteen peer-reviewed quantitative studies involving adolescents aged 12 years and older, university students, and adults were included. Cross-sectional, longitudinal, experimental, diary-based, and ecological momentary assessment studies were synthesised narratively. Methodological quality was evaluated using the relevant Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Across the included studies, emotional eating was positively associated with perceived stress, negative affect, depressive and anxiety symptoms, and difficulties in emotion regulation. Laboratory studies indicated that stress or experimentally induced affect altered eating-related responses in some subgroups, whereas diary-based and ecological momentary assessment studies provided more limited evidence concerning temporal ordering. Several studies reported higher emotional-eating scores among women and individuals with higher BMI, although these patterns were not universal. Lower emotional and appetite awareness were associated with greater emotional eating, while one adolescent ecological momentary assessment study found that greater negative emodiversity was associated with higher trait emotional eating. Prospective evidence also linked emotional eating and psychological distress with subsequent increases in high-sugar food and drink consumption. The findings indicate context-dependent associations between emotional eating, psychological stress, negative affect, and emotion-regulation difficulties. However, because most included studies were observational and relied on self-reported measures, the review does not establish causal direction or demonstrate that emotional eating functions as a coping response in every individual. Further prospective, experimental, and intervention studies are required to clarify the underlying mechanisms and clinical relevance of these associations. People sometimes eat when they are stressed, upset, anxious, or experiencing other strong emotions rather than because they are physically hungry. This is known as emotional eating. We reviewed existing research to understand how emotional eating is related to stress, negative emotions, and difficulties in managing emotions. We searched three major research databases and identified 19 quantitative studies involving adolescents, university students, and adults. Overall, emotional eating was associated with higher stress, negative emotions, anxiety and depressive symptoms, and greater difficulty managing emotions. Some studies suggested that stressful or negative emotional experiences can influence eating responses, particularly in certain groups. Emotional eating was also more common in some studies among women and people with higher body mass index, although these patterns were not consistent across all studies. These findings suggest that emotional eating may be related to how people experience and manage stress and emotions, but it does not necessarily function as a coping response in everyone. Because most studies were observational and relied on self-reported information, the findings do not establish that stress or emotional difficulties directly cause emotional eating. Further prospective and experimental research is needed to better understand why emotional eating occurs and how it might be addressed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saha et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: