Restrained Eaters Food Consumption in Response to Fitness Cues Jörg Königstorfer Hans Baumgartner Healthy food decision making maintaining or lowering their body weight is an important goal ID: 389041
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Eat to Be Fit or Fit to Eat" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Eat to Be Fit or Fit to Eat?Restrained Eaters’ FoodConsumption in Response to Fitness Cues
Jörg KönigstorferHans BaumgartnerSlide2
Healthy food decision makingmaintaining or lowering their body weight is an important goal for 72% of U.S. consumers (Serdula
et al. 1999);focus of prior research has been on the effects of nutrition-related cues on consumption volumes (e.g., Bublitz
et al. 2010;
Chandon
and
Wansink
2010) and
the overconsumption of tempting but unhealthy food
products (e.g.,
Raghunathan
et al. 2006),
esp. by dieters
;
we’re interested in how fitness cues (which deal with physical activity and energy expenditure rather than dieting and energy intake) influence consumption behavior;Slide3
Healthy food decision making (cont’d)fitness cues are common in food marketing;we investigate the effect of fitness cues on restrained eaters’ food consumption and demonstrate that the direction of the
effect depends on the perception of the food category;we also examine the process through which the effect occurs; Slide4
Dietary restraintthe cognitive control of eating;restrained eaters are consumers who constantly worry about their weight and are chronically engaged in dieting efforts in order to achieve or maintain a desirable body weight;they are more sensitive to external cues of eating than internal,
biophysiological feelings of hunger and satiety;their eating behavior is often guided by self-imposed dieting rules designed to restrict food intake;Individual-difference measures:Restraint Scale – concern with dieting and weight fluctuation (Herman and Polivy 1975);
Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire (van
Strien
et al. 1986);Slide5
Dietary restraint and food consumptionpromoting cognitive control over eating can be an effective strategy for weight management (Johnson et al. 2012);however, loss of self-control is common, esp. following dietary lapses and during negative affective states;Heatherton et al. (1988, p. 20) suggest that research should “focus on the more complex question of precisely when, why and how
disinhibition occurs in dieters”;three research questions:Do cues related to fitness and physical activity influence food consumption, and what’s the direction of the effect?
When will fitness cues have inhibitory or
disinhibitory
effects on restrained eaters’ food consumption?
How do fitness cues affect consumption volumes?Slide6
Dietary restraint and fitness cuesprior research has mostly studied restrained eaters’ response to diet cues, not fitness cues;two kinds of fitness cues:integral fitness cues (ingredients, product name, packaging);incidental fitness cuestwo recent studies:after reading about physical activity, consumers helped themselves to more snack food (
Werle et al. 2011);priming consumers with health-related concepts increased consumption of low-fat potato chips (Geyskens et al. 2007);Slide7
Dietary restraint and forbidden vs. permitted foodstwo incompatible goals determine restrained eaters’ reactions to foods (Stroebe et al. 2008):
to resolve this conflict and manage their eating behavior, restrained eaters rely on simple heuristics about the compatibility of certain food categories with their goals (Knight and Boland 1989):Dietary forbidden foods (e.g., chocolate)Dietary permitted foods (e.g., celery)
short-term:
eat tasty food
(to enjoy life)
long-term:
eat nutritious food
(to promote health)Slide8
Forbidden and permitted foods (cont’d)the heuristics used are often inconsistent with the objectively measured calorie content of foodseating a bag of potato chips is more likely to lead to weight gain than drinking an isocaloric glass of grape juice (even when calorie information is provided; e.g., Oakes 2005);the name of the product (pasta vs. salad) may be used to infer its healthiness (Irmak et al. 2011);
the salience of fitness cues in combination with the perception of the food will determine restrained eaters’ consumption behavior;Slide9
Avoidance of dietary forbidden food in response to fitness cueswhen restrained eaters encounter a temptation, they face a goal conflict, and the perception of the category as dietary forbidden may not be sufficient to shield the weight control goal from the eating enjoyment goal;however, when the concept of fitness is made salient, the health goal is reinforced and the eating enjoyment goal is inhibited, leading to a negative relationship between dietary restraint and the consumption of dietary forbidden foods;
prediction is consistent with prior evidence that diet cues can reinstate a weight control goal (e.g., Papies et al. 2008); Slide10
Approach of dietary permitted food in response to fitness cuesthe perceived compatibility of dietary permitted foods with long-term health goals may liberate restrained eaters from having to control their eating behavior and may license them to succumb to the eating enjoyment goal, leading to a positive relationship between dietary restraint and the consumption of dietary permitted
foods;this is consistent with the effects of incidental priming with health- and fitness-related concepts (e.g., Geyskens et al. 2007), and with the effects observed by Irmak et al. (2011);Slide11
Fitness Cue
Food
Consumption
Volume
Dietary
Restrained
Eating
Food Category Perception as
Dietary
Forbidden or Permitted
Incidental
Integral
Overall frameworkSlide12
Mechanisms underlying the effects of fitness cues on food consumptiontwo potential mechanisms (Geyskens et al. 2007):biased product perceptionrestrained eaters may magnify the perceived (in)appropriate-ness of food when the concept of fitness is salient;restrained eaters under- or over-estimate the number of calories contained in a food when the concept of fitness is salient (similar to the counteractive construal strategy proposed by Zhang et al. 2010);
biased self-perception:references to fitness lead restrained eaters to see them-selves as closer to their desired fitness and body weight goals;Slide13
PrestudyHow would you classify the food? (1=dietary forbidden and 7=dietary permitted)If this food were eaten regularly, it would lead to … (1=weight gain, 7=weight loss)
Potato chips
1.94
Fat-free yogurt and granola
5.54
Trail mix
5.32Slide14
S T U D I E S 1A and 1B
Incidental Fitness Cues and the Consumption of Dietary Forbidden
and Dietary Permitted Food Slide15
Two “unrelated” studies
(language test, watch a movie at which a snack was available)
Supraliminal prime manipulation
Scrambled sentence task (with vs. without
fitness
words)
[sporty, fit, active, etc.]
Measures
Potato chips consumption
(pre vs. post)
Dietary Restraint Scale (revised,
α = .78;
Herman &
Polivy
1980
)
Controls: gender, BMI, hours
since last meal, perceived tastiness
Study 1A: Dietary forbidden foodSlide16
Study 1A
Moderated Regression Analysis Results
Consumption of potato chips (kcal)
Neutral prime
Fitness prime
Dietary
restrained eating
(mean-centered)
–1
SD
+1
SD
0
n
= 132
H
1a
R
2
= .15, tastiness, hunger, and BMI
n.s
.
, (male) gender *
n.s
.
n.s
.
s.Slide17
Two “unrelated” studies
(
language test,
assess consumers’ opinions about a new co-branded yogurt and granola mix)
Supraliminal prime
Scrambled sentence task (with vs. without
fitness
words)
Measures
yogurt and granola consumption
(pre vs. post)
Dietary Restraint Scale (revised,
α = .82;
Herman &
Polivy
1980
)
Controls: gender, BMI, hours
since last meal, perceived tastiness
Study
1B:
Dietary permitted foodSlide18
Consumption of yogurt and granola (kcal)
Neutral prime
Fitness prime
Dietary
restrained eating
(mean-centered)
–1
SD
+1
SD
0
Study 1B
M
oderated
R
egression Analysis Results
H
1b
R
2
= .22, hunger and BMI
n.s
.
, tastiness and (male) gender *
n
= 166
n.s
.
n.s
.
s.Slide19
Incidental fitness cues lead dietary restrained eaters to
c
onsume
less
dietary-
forbidden
food
=
inhibition (goal adherence)
consume
more
dietary-
permitted
food
=
disinhibition (goal violation)
Unknown
:
Do integral fitness cues (on the packaging) also lead to disinhibition for dietary permitted foods?
How can disinhibition be explained – via biased
product
perception or biased
self
-perception?
Summary of Studies 1A and 1BSlide20
S T U D
Y
2
Integral Fitness Cues and Consumption of Dietary Permitted FoodSlide21
One-factor design
assess consumers’ opinions about a
new trail mix (with vs. without integral
fitness
cues);
Measures
Trail mix consumption
(pre vs. post)
Dietary Restraint (DEBQ,
α = .91;
van
Strien
et al. 1986
)
Controls: gender, BMI, hours since
last meal, perceived tastiness
Study 2Slide22
Consumption of trail mix (kcal)
Trail Mix
Fitness Trail Mix
Dietary
restrained eating
(mean-centered)
–1
SD
+1
SD
0
Study 2
M
oderated
R
egression Analysis Results
H
2
R
2
= .19, gender, hunger, and BMI
n.s
.
, tastiness *
n
= 162
n.s
.
n.s
.
s.Slide23
S T U D
Y
3
Mechanisms underlying the Effect of Integral Fitness Cues on Consumption for Dietary Permitted FoodsSlide24
One-factor design
assess
consumers’ opinions about a new trail mix (with vs. without integral
fitness
cues
); Ps were asked to imagine eating the product and to evaluate the anticipated consumption experience;
Measures
Product
-related perceptions:
Perception of the food as dietary-
permitted or -forbidden
Calorie estimation (1 serving)
Person
-related perceptions:
Closeness to desired fitness and weight
Dietary restraint and controls measured as before
Study 3Slide25
Trail Mix
Fitness Trail Mix
Dietary
restrained eating
(mean-centered)
–1
SD
+1
SD
0
Product perception
Dietary-
permitted
Dietary-
forbidden
Study 3
M
oderated Regression – Product Perception
n
= 104
H
3
Gender and BMI
n.s
.
n.s
.
s.Slide26
Trail Mix
Fitness Trail Mix
Dietary
restrained eating
(mean-centered)
–1
SD
+1
SD
0
Perceived fulfillment
of fitness goals
Desired fitness
fully reached
Far away from desired fitness
Study 3
M
oderated Regression – Self-Perception
H
3
Gender and BMI
n.s
.
n
= 104
n.s
.
s.Slide27
Trail Mix
Fitness Trail Mix
Dietary
restrained eating
(mean-centered)
–1
SD
+1
SD
0
Perceived fulfillment
of body weight goals
Desired weight
fully reached
Far away from desired weight
Study 3
M
oderated Regression – Self-Perception
H
3
Gender and BMI
n.s
.
n
= 104
n.s
.
s.
s.Slide28
Contribution
Incidental and integral fitness cues (relating to energy
expenditure
) increase energy
intake
of dietary-permitted
food in restrained eaters by 24–43% (at +1
SD
)
Fitness cues make foods appear more dietary permitted;
biases in self-perception can also explain this effect;
Public policy perspective
When cues (here: fitness) license the eating
enjoyment goal, dietary-permitted foods
are most likely to cause disinhibition
Fitness food from ‘safe’ yet calorie-dense
categories may be more harmful than
typical dietary-forbidden food (e.g., chips)
Summary of StudiesSlide29
Integral fitness cuesSlide30
Incidental fitness cuesSlide31
Extreme weight gain
Agreement with the statement that eating 3 slices of bacon [110 kcal] vs. 1 banana [110 kcal] would promote … (Oakes 2005):
M
= 1.87
No weight gain
M
=
4.32