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