Eat to Be Fit or Fit to Eat - PowerPoint Presentation

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