Upload
hu-bowers
View
18
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
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 ); - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Eat to Be Fit or Fit to Eat?
Restrained Eaters’ FoodConsumption in Response to Fitness
Cues
Jörg Königstorfer
Hans Baumgartner
Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues
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;
Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues
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;
Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to 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);
Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues
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);
Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues
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;
Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues
Dietary forbidden or permitted foods
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;
vs.
Restrained eaters’ food consumption 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);
Restrained eaters’ food consumption 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);
Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues
Fitness CueFood
Consumption Volume
DietaryRestrained
Eating
Food Category Perception asDietary Forbidden or Permitted
Incidental
Integral
Overall framework
Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues
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;
Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues
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)
Potato chips 1.94
Fat-free yogurt and granola 5.54
Trail mix 5.32
Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues
S T U D I E S 1A and 1B
Incidental Fitness Cues and the Consumption of Dietary Forbidden
and Dietary Permitted Food
Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues
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 food
Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues
Study 1AModerated Regression Analysis Results
0
50
100
150
200
250
Low DRS
s.s.
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n o
f p
ota
to c
hip
s (k
cal)
Neutral prime
Fitness prime
Dietary restrained eating(mean-centered)
–1 SD +1 SD0 n = 132
H1a
R2 = .15, tastiness, hunger, and BMI n.s., (male) gender *
n.s.n.s.
s.
Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues
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 food
0
50
100
150
200
250
Low DRS
s.
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n o
f yo
gu
rt a
nd
gra
no
la (
kcal
)
Neutral prime
Fitness prime
Dietary restrained eating(mean-centered)
–1 SD +1 SD0
Study 1BModerated Regression Analysis Results
H1b
R2 = .22, hunger and BMI n.s., tastiness and (male) gender *
n = 166
n.s.n.s.
s.
Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues
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?
Summary of Studies 1A and 1B
Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues
S T U D Y 2
Integral Fitness Cues and Consumption of Dietary Permitted Food
Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues
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 2
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Low DRS
s.
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n o
f tr
ail m
ix (
kcal
)
Trail Mix
Fitness Trail Mix
Dietary restrained eating(mean-centered)
–1 SD +1 SD0
Study 2Moderated Regression Analysis Results
H2
R2 = .19, gender, hunger, and BMI n.s., tastiness *
n = 162
n.s.
n.s.s.
Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues
S T U D Y 3
Mechanisms underlying the Effect of Integral Fitness Cues on
Consumption for Dietary Permitted Foods
Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues
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 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Low DRS
n.s. s.
n.s. Trail Mix
Fitness Trail Mix
Dietary restrained eating(mean-centered)
–1 SD +1 SD0
Pro
du
ct p
erce
pti
on
Dietary-permitted
Dietary-forbidden
Study 3Moderated Regression – Product Perception
n = 104
H3
Gender and BMI n.s.
n.s.
s.
0
25
50
75
100
Low DRS
s.
n.s.
Trail Mix
Fitness Trail Mix
Dietary restrained eating(mean-centered)
–1 SD +1 SD0
Per
ceiv
ed f
ulf
illm
ent
of
fitn
ess
go
als
Desired fitnessfully reached
Far away from desired fitness
Study 3Moderated Regression – Self-Perception
H3
Gender and BMI n.s.
n = 104
n.s.
s.
0
25
50
75
100
Low DRS
n.s.Trail Mix
Fitness Trail Mix
Dietary restrained eating(mean-centered)
–1 SD +1 SD0
Per
ceiv
ed f
ulf
illm
ent
of
bo
dy
wei
gh
t g
oal
s
Desired weightfully reached
Far away from desired weight
Study 3Moderated Regression – Self-Perception
H3
Gender and BMI n.s.
n = 104
n.s.
s.
s.
Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues
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 foodsare most likely to cause disinhibition
Fitness food from ‘safe’ yet calorie-densecategories may be more harmful thantypical dietary-forbidden food (e.g., chips)
Summary of Studies
Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues
Integral fitness cues
Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues
Incidental fitness cues
Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues
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