eat to be fit or fit to eat restrained eaters food consumption in response to fitness cues
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Eat to Be Fit or Fit to Eat ? Restrained Eaters’ Food Consumption in Response to Fitness Cues

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 30

Eat to Be Fit or Fit to Eat ? Restrained Eaters’ Food Consumption in Response to Fitness Cues - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 74 Views
  • Uploaded on

Eat to Be Fit or Fit to Eat ? 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 for 72% of U.S. consumers ( Serdula et al. 1999 );

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Eat to Be Fit or Fit to Eat ? Restrained Eaters’ Food Consumption in Response to Fitness Cues' - hu-bowers


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
eat to be fit or fit to eat restrained eaters food consumption in response to fitness cues

Eat to Be Fit or Fit to Eat?Restrained Eaters’ FoodConsumption in Response to Fitness Cues

Jörg Königstorfer

Hans Baumgartner

healthy food decision making
Healthy food decision making

maintaining or lowering their body weight is an important goal for 72% of U.S. consumers (Serdulaet 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;

healthy food decision making cont d
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;

fitness cues
Fitness cues
  • two kinds of fitness cues:
    • integral fitness cues (ingredients, product name, packaging);
    • incidental fitness cues;
  • two 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);
dietary restraint
Dietary restraint
  • the 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;
  • individual-difference measures:
    • Restraint Scale – concern with dieting and weight fluctuation (Herman and Polivy 1975);
    • Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire (van Strien et al. 1986);
dietary restraint and food consumption
Dietary restraint and food consumption

promoting 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”;

we propose that fitness cues can have an inhibitory or disinhibitory effect on restrained eaters’ food consumption depending on whether the product category is perceived as dietary forbidden or dietary permitted;

dietary forbidden or permitted foods
Dietary forbidden or permitted foods

vs.

  • consumers use simple heuristics about the compatibility of certain food categories with their goals to manage their eating behavior (Knight and Boland 1989):
    • Dietary forbidden foods
    • Dietary permitted foods
  • these heuristics used are often inconsistent with the objectively measured calorie content of foods (Oakes 2005; Irmak et al. 2011);
  • the salience of fitness cues in combination with the perception of the food will determine restrained eaters’ consumption behavior;
avoidance of dietary forbidden food in response to fitness cues
Avoidance of dietary forbidden food in response to fitness cues

when restrained eaters encounter a temptation, they face a goal conflict (Ströbe et al. 2008), 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);

approach of dietary permitted food in response to fitness cues
Approach of dietary permitted food in response to fitness cues

the 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);

overall framework
Overall framework
  • Integral

DietaryRestrainedEating

Food Consumption Volume

Fitness Cue

Food Category Perception asDietaryForbidden or Permitted

  • Incidental
mechanisms underlying the effects of fitness cues on food consumption
Mechanisms underlying the effects of fitness cues on food consumption

two potential mechanisms (Geyskens et al. 2007):

  • biased product perception
    • restrained 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;

prestudy
Prestudy

How 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)

slide13

S T U D I E S 1A and 1B

Incidental Fitness Cues and the Consumption of Dietary Forbidden

and Dietary Permitted Food

study 1a dietary forbidden food
Study 1A: Dietary forbidden food
  • 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
slide15

H1a

Study 1A

Moderated Regression Analysis Results

Neutral prime

Fitness prime

Consumption of potato chips (kcal)

n.s.

n.s.

R2 = .15, tastiness, hunger, and BMI n.s., (male) gender *

s.

n = 132

–1 SD

0

+1 SD

Dietaryrestrained eating(mean-centered)

study 1b dietary permitted food
Study 1B: Dietary permitted food
  • 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
slide17

H1b

Study 1B

Moderated Regression Analysis Results

Neutral prime

Fitness prime

s.

n.s.

Consumption of yogurt and granola (kcal)

n.s.

R2 = .22, hunger and BMI n.s., tastiness and (male) gender *

n = 166

–1 SD

0

+1 SD

Dietaryrestrained eating(mean-centered)

summary of studies 1a and 1b
Summary of Studies 1A and 1B
  • Incidental fitness cues lead dietary restrained eaters to
    • consume 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?
slide19

S T U D Y 2

Integral Fitness Cues and Consumption of Dietary Permitted Food

study 2
Study 2
  • 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
slide21

H2

Study 2

Moderated Regression Analysis Results

Trail Mix

Fitness Trail Mix

s.

Consumption of trail mix (kcal)

n.s.

n.s.

R2 = .19, gender, hunger, and BMI n.s., tastiness *

n = 162

–1 SD

0

+1 SD

Dietaryrestrained eating(mean-centered)

slide22

S T U D Y 3

Mechanisms underlying the Effect of Integral Fitness Cues on Consumption for Dietary Permitted Foods

study 3
Study 3
  • 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
slide24

H3

Study 3

Moderated Regression – Product Perception

Dietary-permitted

Trail Mix

n.s.

s.

Fitness Trail Mix

Product perception

Gender and BMI n.s.

Dietary-forbidden

n = 104

–1 SD

0

+1 SD

Dietaryrestrained eating(mean-centered)

slide25

H3

Study 3

Moderated Regression – Self-Perception

Desired fitnessfully reached

Trail Mix

n.s.

Fitness Trail Mix

s.

Perceived fulfillmentof fitness goals

Gender and BMI n.s.

Far away from desired fitness

n = 104

–1 SD

0

+1 SD

Dietaryrestrained eating(mean-centered)

slide26

H3

Study 3

Moderated Regression – Self-Perception

Desired weightfully reached

Trail Mix

n.s.

Fitness Trail Mix

s.

Perceived fulfillmentof body weight goals

s.

Gender and BMI n.s.

Far away from desired weight

n = 104

–1 SD

0

+1 SD

Dietaryrestrained eating(mean-centered)

slide27

Summary of Studies

  • 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)
slide30

Agreement with the statement that eating 3 slices of bacon [110 kcal] vs. 1 banana [110 kcal] would promote … (Oakes 2005):

M = 4.32

M = 1.87

Extreme weight gain

No weight gain

ad