Acknowledgments

I DON’T THINK THEREFORE I

EAT…..BADLY. CAN SUBTLE DIET CUES

AFFECT SUBSEQUENT SNACKING?

A PSYC5760M MSc PATH Research Project supervised by

Professor Marion Hetherington A dissertation submitted in partial

fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Psychological

Approaches to Health and in agreement with the University of

Leeds’ Declaration of Academic Integrity

Farhat Kausar

Mahmood 2012

1

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my lovely supervisor Prof Marion Hetherington for kindly agreeing

to supervise me for the duration of my thesis and for their patience and support whilst

we worked through the finer points of the experiment. As well as this I would like to

thank everyone in the HARU and those PhD students who have offered kind words,

encouragement, help, resources and time in order to improve the experiment especially

Graham for his advice on the snack task.

A special thank you goes to Louise Gill for being there during some wobbly moments

and all the lecturers at the University for making the course so interesting.

I would like to thank my family and friends for putting up with my absence from

birthdays, special occasions and baby- sitting duties.

Finally I would like to thank my husband for supporting me financially and encouraging

me to follow my dreams, for all the dinners he has cooked and all the times he has had

to deal with my tantrums.

2

CONTENTS Abstract

…………………………………………………………………………………… 2

Introduction

…………………………………………………………………………………… 3

Method

…………………………………………………………………………………… 7

Participants

…………………………………………………………………………………… 7

Restraint

…………………………………………………………………………………… 8

Procedure

…………………………………………………………………………………… 9

Cover Story

…………………………………………………………………………………… 10

Goal Accessibility Task

……………………………………………………………………………………

10

TFEQ & PFS

…………………………………………………………………………………… 11

Control Condition

…………………………………………………………………………………… 12

Experimental Condition

…………………………………………………………………………………… 13

Foods

…………………………………………………………………………………… 15

Design

…………………………………………………………………………………… 16

Results

…………………………………………………………………………………… 16

Results

…………………………………………………………………………………… 17

Discussion

…………………………………………………………………………………… 25

References

…………………………………………………………………………………… 29

Appendix

…………………………………………………………………………………… 32

3

Abstract

The study conducted was designed to test goal conflict theory by Stroebe et al (2008)

According to this theory restrained eaters are trying to manage two conflicting goals

namely, eating pleasure and weight control. However due to the higher rates of eating

pleasure cues in the environment the weight control cue is inhibited. The aims of the

study were to evaluate if subtle diet cues can inhibit snacking in restrained eaters.

Restraint was tested using the Three Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ). The subtle

diet cue inserted into the experiment was simply the word diet on the packaging of a

beverage in order to test if it was enough to activate dieting goals and inhibit

subsequent snacking. The population under study was 22 women aged between 18-55

years. Results found that there were no significant differences between restrained and

unrestrained eaters in their consumption of snacks when exposed to a subtle diet cue.

There was also no difference in intake between conditions for both restrained as well as

unrestrained eaters. There was a trend toward significance however as the study was

not sufficiently powered no significant results were found.

4

Introduction

One of the reasons posited to explain the reason that many people struggle to maintain

a healthy weight is due to an obesogenic or toxic environment that is filled with highly

palatable and energy rich foods, as a consequence of this it can be difficult to maintain a

healthy weight Hill & Peters (1998) Wadden, Brownell, & Foster (2002).

One of the ways in which people are advised to maintain a healthy weight is through

diet and lifestyle. In order to achieve the diet aspect of this many people turn to calorie

counting or restricting calories. Unfortunately however the lack of long term success of

dieting is well documented (Miller, 1999; Polivy & Herman, 2002). With the lack of a

long term solution to their problems of overweight and obesity people are constantly

dieting and often, subsequently gaining weight, Mann et al (2007). The effect of this to

and fro can cause what has been termed restrained eating. The irony is that by

restraining their eating dieters may be falling into a trap of wanting to eat more food.

One of the reasons that have been cited for this is that restricting food can lead to an

increase in the frequency of obsessive eating and thoughts as well as possibly an

increase in appetite Doucet et al, (2000), Hart & Chiovari, (1998). Polivy, Coleman, and

Herman (2005).

Several studies have demonstrated that food cues in the environment trigger stronger

appetite responses in restrained eaters than their unrestrained counterparts. These

responses can vary from greater rates of salivation (Brunstrom, Yates, & Witcomb,

2004; LeGoff & Spigelman, 1987) to stronger urges to eat, Fedoroff, Polivy, & Herman,

(1997, 2003); Harris, Bargh, & Brownell, (2009); Harvey, Kemps, & Tiggemann, (2005).

5

As restraint seems to be a moderating variable in the study of eating behaviour it seems

necessary to ask why this is overridden. Recent theories suggest that eating behaviour

seems to be driven by the eating (hedonic) pleasure and wanting food rather than as a

biological mechanism in order to maintain homeostasis, Finlayson, King, & Blundell,

(2008); Lowe & Butryn, (2007); Mela, (2006).

Goal conflict theory

According to the goal conflict theory by Stroebe (2008) restrained eaters are trying to

manage two conflicting goals namely, eating pleasure and weight control. As these two

goals conflict restrained eaters are fighting a constant battle to maintain the balance

between them. Unfortunately due to the higher rate of food enjoyment cues in their

environment the weight control cue is more often than not, inhibited (Shah &

Kruglanski, (2002), Shah et al., (2002) outside of conscious control or awareness

Bodenhausen & Macrae,1998; Shah et al., 2002). If dieters are however reminded of

their diet goals they can reduce their intake of palatable food as studies by (Anschutz,

Van Strien, & Engels, 2008; Papies & Hamstra, 2010; Ward & Mann, 2000) have shown.

Of the various ways that people can be reminded of their diet goals research suggests

that ‘behavioural stop signals can be effective. These are cues in the environment near

tempting foods that cause a braking mechanism to be activated before they have carried

out an action Houben, 2011; Houben & Jansen, 2011; Veling, Holland, & van

Knippenberg, 2008 ; Coxon, Stinear and Byblow, 2009) and may remind dieters of their

dieting goals.

In a recent study by Veling et al (2011) who used go/no go task and presented

participants with pictures of palatable foods and neutral pictures with the go/no go

cues to test if presenting behavioural stop signals would inhibit eating. They found that

the effect was instant and lasted for at least a day. Unfortunately the long term

6

effects of the cue were not tested and it could be that the behaviour would become

extinguished quite quickly especially in the absence of regular go/no go cues.

Theories of motivation suggest that motivation facilitates the accessibility of goal

related intentions and thus improves the likelihood of carrying out a goal, Forster et al

(2004), Goschke & Kuhl, (1993), Kuhl, (1983, 1987),Kuhl & Kaze´n-Saad, (1988).

According to Gollwitzer (1996) cues that relate to relevant goals can be automatically

and unconsciously found by motivated individuals in their environment which

subsequently reactivate goals and help achieve them. As well as this goal priming can

also have the same effect, Moskowitz, Li, & Kirk (2004).

In 2001 a seminal study carried out by Bargh et al found that by priming participants by

placing subtle words such as master, attain and achieve in their environment they could

manipulate the participants into not just working longer at a puzzle in order to solve it,

continue working despite being interrupted and found more words than a control

group. This effect was also found when priming occurred subliminally (by way of

masking the words on a computer screen). Another study that demonstrates this effect

was that done by Fishbach et al (2003) who primed participants by means of magazines

featuring dieting which led to participants choosing a piece of fruit over a chocolate bar.

An experiment carried out in a more naturalistic setting was that conducted by Papies &

Hamstra (2010) in which they offered free meat based snacks to customers of a local

shop. Participants were primed with a dieting goal (a recipe that would help maintain a

slim figure) displayed in the window and then the number of free snacks consumed by

the participants was recorded. The study found that restrained eaters ate more in the

control condition than in the experimental condition. Unfortunately however no other

measures of hunger, food deprivation or controls testing engagement with the prime

were put in place. The study makes no mention of how the days and times were chosen

to put up the poster that primed participants. There could be a variety of reasons that

7

contributed to the difference in results and not just restraint. One of these factors may

be availability, situation (perceived appropriateness) as well the current internal state

of a person, Mela (2001). This method of priming participants with a diet cue was

explored but in a more controlled environment for the current study with the aim of

examining whether a subtle diet cue will lead to a reduced snacking and whether this

will be the same in restrained as well as unrestrained eaters. The current study used

food packaging as the diet cue. It was expected that there would be a difference between

restrained and unrestrained eaters in consumption of snacks when exposed to a subtle

diet cue. It was also expected that restrained eaters’ food intake would be different

between conditions. The dependent variable was the intake of the snacks.

In a bid to ascertain whether or not the diet cue in the environment had activated any

diet related goals participants may have and if they could access these goals the study

used a Goal Accessibility Task. It was hypothesised that the subtle diet cue in the

environment would activate diet goals that were more easily accessible and as such

participants would be quicker at recognising diet related words and slower to recognise

tempting words in the diet condition. Fischler & Bloom (1979), Mikulincer et al

(2002),Knowles & Gardner (2008).

8

Method

Participants

The population used for the purposes of the study were women aged between 19-55

years with a mean age of 28.7. The mean self- reported height in centimetres and mean

self -reported weight in kilos as well as these measurements taken by the researcher

can be found in table (1) below.

Table 1

Height (cm) Weight (K) BMI

Self- Reported 162.64 65.54 24.75

Actual 163.29 62.05 23.34

The breakdown of the percentage of women who were overweight and within the

normal range in BMI is shown in the figure (1) below. There were no obese or

underweight participants.

Fig (1)

Women only participants were used based on the assumption that they were the most

likely to be dieting and it was hoped that an equal number of participants would be

23.81 %

76.19%

Breakdown of paticipant BMI

Overweight

Normal BMI

9

either dieting to lose weight, were maintaining their weight or were doing neither.

Participants were screened and excluded if they had food allergies, medical conditions

and/or a history of eating disorders. Payment was made to the participants in the form

of £15 worth of Love to Shop vouchers on completion of and participation in all three

conditions of the experiment. Participants were recruited from the University of Leeds

participant database, using posters around campus a copy of which can be found in

appendix (1) and through referrals and recommendations from participants who had or

were taking part in the study.

In total 37 participants responded to the invitation to take part of these, 8 were

excluded due to the screening criteria.7 were invited to take part but never booked an

appointment. 1 participant attended twice but not the third and in total 21 participants

completed the entire experiment. A flow diagram of this process can be found below

Figure (2).

Restraint

To test if there was a difference between restrained and unrestrained eaters the median

restraint score was found and all those with a score below 9 were categorised as

unrestrained and all those above as restrained. 12 participants were categorised as

unrestrained with 9 being restrained.

10

Fig 2

Procedure

All participants were asked to e-mail the researcher with their details with an

expression of interest in the first instance. Upon receipt of interest from the relevant

party everyone was sent an information sheet detailing the cover story, number and

length of sessions a copy of which can be found in the appendix (2) and the

remuneration participants could expect to receive as well as screening questionnaire, a

copy of which can also be found in the appendix (3).

11

Cover story

The cover story employed for the study centred around the multi-sensory perception of

flavour i.e. flavour perception based on packaging and subsequent perception of flavour

on snacks. The experiment took place at the Institute of Psychological Sciences in the

Human Appetite Research Unit (HARU). A copy of the cover story presented to the

participants upon their first visit to the HARU can be found in appendix (4) featuring a

study by Auvray & Spence (2008) entitled The Multi-Sensory Perception of Flavour.

GAT

In order to test if the participants could access their dieting goals if they had any and to

see if they were activated during the course of the experiment a goal accessibility task

was set up on the computer programme called E-prime. Goal accessibility was

measured using a word completion task using words taken from the website

psycholinguistics website http://www.psy.uwa.edu.au/MRCDataBase/uwa_mrc.htm.

The goal accessibility questionnaire was in the form of a word recognition task.

Participants were presented with104 words. Of these there were 08 critical words. 04

of these were diet words namely diet, slim, thin, and weight with 04 hedonistic words

namely Scrumptious, Tasty, Tempting and delicious. There were 48 neutral words

presented such as cope, soil and roof that had been matched for length and frequency

and these were generated using the website http://www.wordcount.org/about.html.

This provided frequencies of words based on the British National Corpus. There were

also 48 non-words such as maln, yawt, and gwoe presented. These were phonotactically

plausible non-words-again that had been matched for frequency- each critical word was

matched 6 times in frequency. Non-words were generated from

http://www.maccs.mq.edu.au/~nwdb/

12

Participants were presented with the words and asked to decide if the words were real

words or non-words on a computer in the cubicle in which they completed the rest of

the experiment. All participants were presented with the same set of instructions and

each word remained on the screen till a decision had been reached before the next word

was presented. All data was recorded and reaction times were recorded in milliseconds

(ms) and input into SPSS to ascertain the reaction time and accuracy of the decisions

made.

TFEQ & PFS

In order to gauge if participants were restrained or unrestrained eaters, the Three

Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ) by Stunkard & Messick (1985) was used. To

measure the differences between individuals eating behaviours and restraint this

measure was taken at the end of the experiment when all tasks had been completed.

This was to minimise any chances of the participants guessing the purpose of the study

and also to ensure the simple act of asking eating related questions would not

contaminate the study in any way by affecting eating /snacking behaviour. The

questionnaire was delivered on the computer using the Qualtrics website. As well as the

TFEQ the Power of Food Scale (PFS), Lowe (2007) also formed part of this

questionnaire as well as the date of participants last period and also what they thought

was the purpose of the study. There was a final question on the height and weight of

participants was measured by the researcher as an independent, objective measure of

these details. This information was taken in the HARU.

13

Control condition

The participants were asked to attend the HARU on three separate occasions. On each

occasion they came in twice with each instance separated by a two hour break. The first

occasion participants were asked to come in was to control for baseline snacking levels.

In the control condition informed consent for the study was obtained. Participants were

informed that they must take part in a taste check session to ensure they like the taste

of the chosen test foods. The control condition consisted as did the two experimental

conditions of an initial visit to the HARU for a set lunch of a cheese sandwich with

yoghurt and pre-weighed water. Participants were then free to leave the HARU to

return two hours from the start of their allotted time for lunch.

In the control condition participants were asked to initially complete the consent form a

copy of which can be found in appendix (5), they were then given a copy of the cover

story to read if they wished but were told the purpose of the study was as per the cover

story that the researchers were attempting to find out if the packaging of a beverage

affected subsequent perception of the flavour of snacks they subsequently consumed

and were given the opportunity to ask any questions. Participants were also given an

outline of the sessions (appendix (6). Participants were then asked to complete a

100mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) a copy of which can be found in the appendix (7).

The first VAS was completed immediately after completing the prior food consumption

questionnaire (appendix 8). Following the completion of these, participants were

provided with a set lunch consisting of a cheese sandwich, yoghurt and pre-weighed

water. The lunch was standardised and all of the components of the sandwich from the

bread to the cheese were the same for all participants. The yoghurt was also a standard

amount namely 155 grams as was the water at 350 grams. The same plates, bowls,

glasses and jugs were used for all the participants. All instructions provided were also

14

standardised and the participants were asked to eat as much as they could of the lunch

that was provided in a bid to control for hunger across the sample. Having eaten lunch

participants were asked to complete the second of the VAS after which they were free to

leave and were asked to return two hours after the start of the lunch session.

Upon their return participants were again asked to complete a VAS and then taste and

rate the four snacks that had been chosen to form part of the study. The snack rating

task was devised by the researchers and was made to look as if it were a genuine test of

sensory analysis and was named as a Food Analysis Sensory Task (FAST), a copy of this

can be found in appendix (9). Participants were asked to taste and rate snacks with no

packaging present. The snacks provided were pre-weighed portions and the

participants also received a set amount of water. Participants were asked to have as

much or little as they liked whilst completing taste ratings of the snack foods. In order

to control for the amount of exposure that participants had to the food they were given

exactly ten minutes in all three conditions to complete the task and be exposed to the

snacks. This control condition was used as a baseline measure to control for between

group/individual differences. Having completed the snack rating task participants were

asked to complete a final VAS after which they were asked to complete an alertness task

which was in fact the Goal Accessibility Task (GAT).

Experimental conditions

In the experimental conditions upon their return from the two hour break participants

were presented with a can of the beverage either diet or regular depending on the

condition they had been assigned to, a glass with 40 grams of regular coke, which

participants were told was the drink that corresponded with the packaging in front of

them and a jug of water to cleanse their palate between different sections of the

packaging task. The participants were instructed to complete a second VAS after which

15

they were required to rate the packaging and taste the beverage in a set of eight

questions. A copy of the packaging task can be found in the appendix (10). The

packaging task was constructed in an effort to ensure that participants engaged with the

diet cue and were as a consequence primed with the diet cue. Upon completion of the

packaging task the participants were asked to complete a further VAS. The participants

were then required to complete the GAT whilst the packaging of the beverage remained

in the room with them.

Having completed the GAT, participants were presented with the Food Analysis Sensory

Task (FAST) and were again provided with the same snacks as in the control condition

and asked to consume as little or as much as they needed in order to complete the task.

The participants were given ten minutes in order to complete the task and were then

given their final (VAS) to complete. On the third and final occasion that participants

attended after the final VAS had been completed participants were asked to complete a

final questionnaire which was in fact the Three Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ)

Stunkard & Messick (1985), diet status (Lowe, 1993), diet goal importance and self-

regulatory success questions Fishbach et al., (2003) and questions designed to ask if any

participant had guessed the true nature of the study. On this final occasion participants

height and weight was measured, they were given £15 worth of Love to Shop vouchers

and were advised they would be debriefed via e-mail.

All the tasks that the participants did were delivered in booklets in order to ensure

everything was conducted in exactly the same order for every participant and to

standardise the process for everyone. A copy of all the booklets can be found in

appendix (11). A diagrammatic explanation of the experiment can be found below in

Figure (3)

16

Fig (3)

Foods

The foods provided to participants for lunch consisted of a cheese sandwich using

Cathedral City light mature cheddar (ready grated) (42g), iceberg lettuce (18g), Lurpak

spread (9g), Hellmans light mayonnaise (8g) and Hovis thick sliced white bread (100g)

and Onken wholegrain strawberry yoghurt (155g). A set 350 grams of water was

provided with lunch. As part of the snack task four different snacks were provided two

of which were sweet and two savoury. These were salt and vinegar flavour Snack a Jacks

rice cakes (30g). Sainsbury’s own brand cheese savouries (60g), Fiddes Payne pink and

white mini marshmallows (50g), Galaxy chocolate counters (135g) and a set 350 grams

of water was also provided with the snacks. The drink provided was regular Coca Cola

(40g).

Prior food

consumption

Lunch

Diet drink

Cue condition

Regular drink

Packaging

Task

GAT

Snack Taste and Rating

TFEQ

PFS

Demographics

17

Design

The study used a mixed within subjects 2x3 design with restraint as a between subjects

factor and condition (control, tempting, diet) as within subjects. The order of the

conditions was counterbalanced and there were at least seven days between each

condition and two hours between lunch and the actual consumption of the snacks and

drink.

Participants were assigned to their respective conditions by use of a virtual die from the

website virtual dice: http://www.bgfl.org/bgfl/custom/resources_ftp/client_ftp/ks1/maths/dice/six.htm)

All odd numbers were assigned to the regular coke condition and even numbers were

assigned to the diet coke condition.

18

Results

Energy Intake between conditions and restraint

A repeated measures ANOVA was carried out to test for the main effect of condition

with 3 X within subjects (control, tempting, diet) 2 between subjects factor (restrained,

unrestrained) Data was analysed to remove any outliers resulting in n=16 the means

and restraint status by condition can be found below in Figure (4).

Fig 4

The total energy intake by condition was not significant F (2, 28) = 3.12 p > .060 =

.182 and there were no main effects of restraint on energy intake by condition F (2, 28)

=1.04 p > .366 = .069. The results for energy intake based on restraint was F (2, 28) =

1.04 p <.366 but with a very low β.21 making the result not significant.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Control Tempting Diet

Ene

rgy

in K

cal

Condition

Total Energy Intake (Kcal) between conditions

Restrained

Unrestrained

19

Snacks by condition

An ANOVA was run to ascertain if there were any significant differences between the

amount of snacks consumed in each condition and if the type of snack differed

significantly across conditions.

Fig (5 )

Individual analyses of the amount of snacks eaten based on the condition show that

there was a significant difference in the weight of marshamllows eaten with a mean

(8.76 SD 6.68) in the control condition a mean (13.78 SD 12.81) in the tempting

condition and a mean 15.5 SD 14.6 in the diet condition, F (2, 40) =6.54 p <.003 =

.247 This difference in consumption was significant between the control and diet

condition with p <.032.

There was no significant difference in the amount of rice cakes eaten between condition

with a mean (8.75 SD 8.15) in the control (8.86 SD 7.23) in the tempting and (8.04 SD

7.52) in the diet condition consumed, F (2, 40) =.243 p> .786 =.012 .

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Control Tempting Diet

Inta

ke in

Gra

ms

Condition

Mean snack intake (grams) by condition

Marshmallows

Rice Cakes

Cheese Savouries

Chocolate Counters

20

The mean amount of cheese savouries eaten in grams in the control, tempting and diet

condition was (11.23 SD 9.21, 14.91 SD 13.37) and (16.68 SD 15.45) respectively with F

(2, 40) =4.11 p <.024 = .171 however as the β is .70 this is not significant.

The means for the consumption of the chocolate counters in the conditions are (27.35

SD 22.57, 36.50 SD 31.91) in the tempting and (37.79 SD 32.26) in the diet condition, F

(2, 40) = 3.65 p < .035 = .154 however with the β .64 this was not significant again.

This information is presented in figure (5) above.

Snacking by Restraint and condition

A repeated measures ANOVA was run to test if there was a main effect of condition on

snack intake and restraint. The mean total snacks consumed in the control, tempting and

diet conditions are shown in Table 2

Table 2

Condition Status Mean (grams) Std Deviation

Control

Unrestrained 309.94 182.86

Restrained 214.81 160.87

Tempting

Unrestrained 407.61 274.16

Restrained 283.61 223.56

Diet

Unrestrained 437.45 278.27

Restrained 287.27 249.65

There was a significant main effect of condition on snack consumption F (2, 38) = 5.469

p <.008 =.224 but no interaction effect based on the restraint status of the

21

participants F (2, 38) =.361 p>.699 .019. Analyses on the main effects of restraint on

eating were again, not significant F (2, 20) = 1.166 p > .334 or of dis-inhibition F (2, 20)

= 2.013 p>.163.

Analysis comparing the snacks eaten based on condition was statistically sigificant F (2,

40)= 6.45 p < .003 = .249 as well as the type of snack by condition F (6, 120)= 2.22 p

< .003 = .249. There was no difference between the control and tempting condition p

>.079 however there was a significant difference between the control and diet condition

p <.024 in the amount of food eaten. The difference in food type eaten was between the

marshmallows and chocolate counters p >.001 and between the rice cakes and

chocolate counters p < .003.

Subjective States individual

There were no significant differences in ratings of hunger between conditions and pre

prime F (2, 40) = .157 p>.855 or of tiredness F (2, 40) = 1.63 p> .208, desire to eat F (2,

40) = .662 p> .521, for happy there was a trend toward significance however with β at

.63 this was not significant with F (2, 40) =3.54 p<. There were no significant differences

between conditions in ratings of fullness with F (2,40) =1.20 p>.311, this was the case

for how relaxed participants were between conditions with F (2,40) 2.61 p> .086 and

finally for stress again no significant differences with F (2, 40) .740 p > .483.

Subjective states + restraint

Further analyses were run to ascertain if there were any significant differences between

conditions and between restrained and unrestrained eaters in ratings of hunger. There

were no significant differences found in hunger ratings by condition with F (2, 38)= .126

p >.882 =.007 or between condition and restraint status F (2, 38)= .071 p > .932

22

=.004. This analysis was also run on ratings of tiredness. There was no significant

difference in rating of tiredness between condition F (2, 38) =1.55 p > .225 = .076 or

between restraint status and condition F (2, 38) =.447 p >.643 = .023 The results for

ratings of the desire to eat were not significant with effects of condition as F (2, 38) =

.493 p >.614 .025 and of restraint as F (2, 38) = .766 p> .472 .039. There was a

trend toward significance in happiness ratings between condition F (2,38)= 4.52 p<.017

=.192 but unfortunately the β .74 means that the effect was not significant. There

were no significant differences in fullness ratings between conditions F (2, 38)= .992 p>

.380 = .050 or between restrint status F (2, 38) = .321 p > .727 = .017.

Ratings of being relaxed were not significant between conditions F (2, 38) 2.81 p >.073

= .129 or due to restraint status F (2,38) =.493 p > .615 = .025. Finally ratings of

stress were non significant between condition F (2, 38) = .613 p > .547 = .031 or

between restraint status F (2, 38) = .470 p > .628 =.024.

GAT

For the Goal Accessibility Task mean reaction times for the diet congruent words were

calculated. From these outliers were excluded using SPSS and the results for 18

participants were used for analysis. Participants who had taken longer than

3055milliseconds (ms) to react to the diet related words in the control condition were

excluded. In the tempting condition a reaction time longer than 2402ms meant that data

was excluded and in the diet condition this time was 3416ms.

Reaction times to hedonistic words that were longer than 2984 ms were excluded from

the control condition, 2738 ms in the tempting condition and 2838 ms in the diet

23

condition. An ANOVA was run to analyse the main effects of condition on reaction times

for the diet words used in the study, results revealed F (2, 34) = 2.03 p <.146 .107

that there were no main effects on reaction times by condition.

This analysis was again for main effects of condition on reaction times for the hedonistic

words in the study F (2, 34) = .900 p > 416 .050. Details of the means for both diet

and hedonistic words can be found in Fig (6)

Fig (6)

GAT by Restraint

Analyses of the mean reaction times for hedonistic words based on restraint status

There was no main effect of condition on reaction time F (2, 32) = 1.064 p > .357 or of

restraint status by condition F= (2, 32) 1.08 p >.352.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Tim

e in

Mill

ise

con

ds

Condition

Mean reaction time for diet and hedonistic words between conditions

Diet Words

Hedonistic Words

24

There were no main effects of condition on reaction times for diet words F (2, 32) = 1.20

p < .152. There was also no interaction between restraint status and condition on

reaction times F (2, 32) =.670 p > .506. The mean reaction times in milliseconds

between conditions for diet and hedonistic words and based on restraint status can be

found below in figure (7).

Fig 7

GAT exclude incorrect answers.

A repeated measures ANOVA was run on the responses to the critical words in the GAT

after removing any incorrect responses. There was no significant difference in accuracy

between conditions with F (2, 42) =.537 p >.588. This was found to be the case when the

accuracy of neutral words was checked between conditions with F (2, 42) =.804 p >.454.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Mean reaction time (ms) for diet and hedonistic words between condition and restraint status

Diet Words

Hedonistic Words

25

There was no significant difference between the non-word accuracy either by condition

with F (2, 42) = .735 p >.486. Finally this analysis was run to test for overall word

accuracy between conditions and this was also not significant F (2, 42) =.760 p >.474.

A repeated measures ANOVA was run to test if there was a main effect of condition on

overall accuracy F (2, 38) = 3.34 p <.046β .060 so was not significant. The was no

significant interaction between restraint and condition either F (2, 38) = .069 p > .933

This analysis was run again to test if there was a main effect of condition on the

accuracy of the critical words which revealed there was no significant effect F (2, 38)

1.13 p > .334 there was no significant interaction between condition and restraint F (2,

38) = .396 p > .675.

26

Discussion

There were no significant results and the null hypothesis needs to be accepted for the

current study. There were no significant differences between restrained and

unrestrained eaters in their consumption of snacks when exposed to a subtle diet cue.

There was also no difference in intake between conditions for both restrained as well as

unrestrained eaters. There was a significant difference between energy intake but this

was not as expected because the differences occurred between the control and diet

condition and in fact intake increased in the diet condition rather than decrease as was

expected. As such participants ate the least in the control condition and most in the diet

cue condition. There were no interactions between restraint status or dis-inhibition on

consumption. There was a difference in food type eaten and this was only significant

between the rice cakes (eaten the least) and chocolate counters (eaten the most)

between the control and diet condition. Other effects may have been found however the

study was not sufficiently powered to produce significant results though there was a

trend toward significance in the amount of cheese savouries and chocolate counters

consumed between conditions.

This problem extended to the Visual Analogue Scales also wherein there was a trend

toward significance in ratings of happiness between conditions.

On the whole where the snacks were concerned the main interaction effects were found

between the control and diet condition with participants consuming the least in the

control condition and the most in the diet condition. However for the Goal Accessibility

Task there was a main effect of condition on reaction and this was between the

tempting and control condition. There were also interaction effects of condition on

restraint status at a significant level and this was again between the control and

tempting condition. This could be attributed to an activation of diet goals in the

27

presence of regular coke rather than diet as participants may have held implicit

attitudes about the un-healthiness of the beverage and it’s incongruity with diet goals

Provencher et al (2009). This could be seen as a limitation of the study which could be

remedied by either using a beverage that is less well known and so less likely to be

loaded with unhealthy perceptions. Another way could have been to gauge implicit

attitudes to the beverage and using this as a separate variable to control for within and

between subject differences.

The current study has attempted to control for all other variables that could confound

the results such as hunger by controlling for this as well as mood. The researchers also

designed the study to ensure that all participants had to engage with the packaging and

thus were primed with the subtle diet cue, namely the word diet on the beverage can.

Participants time with the snacks was also standardised to minimize the chances of any

one participant under or overeating. Despite these controls the current study has not

found significant results, conversely participants ate more in the diet condition. This

could suggest that there are other factors at play in the decision making process

whether it be conscious or subconscious. As the results are contrary to previous

findings it may suggest that diet cues in the environment can be too subtle despite the

findings of Papies & Hamstra (2010), who also used a subtle diet cue in the environment

but did not use as many controls as the current study. An alternative explanation is that

the study was not sufficiently powered.

Unfortunately due to time constraints there were only 21 participants in the sample and

had there been more it is likely more significant results would have been found,

especially as there were several results that were trending toward significance that had

to be disregarded due to a lack of power.

28

It was interesting to note that there was a trend (though not significant) with restrained

eaters consuming less than their unrestrained counterparts, yet for both sets of

participants their results still went up in a linear fashion from least consumption in the

control condition to most in the diet condition. This could be as a consequence of

normative beliefs about healthy options which previous research suggests increase

intake because of perceptions of health Provencher (2009) Herman & Polivy, (2007),

Herman and Polivy (2008). This could explain why participants ate more in the diet

condition believing that as they had drunk a low calorie beverage they could consume

more snacks.

The implications of this research may be limited due to the lack of power, however two

areas of research may have overlapped here limiting or confounding the results. In

previous studies the diet cues have been in the environment Papies and Hamstra (2010)

Bargh et al (2001), Fishbach et al (2003) and have not been a part of the experiment

testing consumption as in the current study. As the diet cue was packaging and

participants had to consume some of the said beverage the effects of the diet cue may

have been inhibited by the normative health beliefs held by participants about the

beverage thus affecting the consumption of the subsequent snacks. This suggests that

diet cues need to be separate from the food being consumed and perhaps should not

form part of the packaging or content of the food being consumed as this may result in

overconsumption.

As the above tentative conclusions suggest the field of research into eating behaviour

and attempting to increase healthy behaviours especially where food choices are

concerned is extremely complex. Future research could look at the whether

attitudes/perceptions of healthy and unhealthy foods override diet goals and which

effect is stronger the attitude to a food or the diet goal. As well as this it may be

interesting to see if subtle diet cues in the environment need to stay in the environment

29

and not interact with participants as in the current study to be effective or if this study

with sufficient power can yield statistically significant results negating the need for

further speculation into the effect found.

30

References

Anschutz, D. J., Van Strien, T., & Engels, R. C. M. E. (2008). Exposure to slim images in

mass media: television commercials as reminders of restriction in restrained eaters. Health

Psychology, 27, 401-408.

Auvray & Spence (2007). The multisensory perception of flavour. Consciousness and

cognition, 17, 1016- 1031

Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., Lee Chai, A., Barndollar, K., & Troetschel, R. (2001). The

automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioural goals. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 81,1014–1027.

Bodenhausen, G. V., & Macrae, C. N. (1998). Stereotype activation and inhibition. In R. S.

Wyer (Ed.). Advances in social cognition (Vol. 11,pp. 1–52). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brunstrom, J. M., Yates, H. M., & Witcomb, G. L. (2004). Dietary restraint and heightened

reactivity to food. Physiology and Behaviour, 81, 85–90.

Coxon, J. P., Stinear, C. M., & Byblow, W. D. (2009). Stop and go: the neural basis of

selective movement prevention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(6),1193-1203.

Doucet, E., Imbeault, P., St Pierre, S., Almeras, N., Mauriege, P., Richard, D., et al. (2000).

Appetite after weight loss by energy restriction and a low-fat diet-exercise followup.

International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders, 24, 906–914.

Fedoroff, I. C., Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (1997). The effect of pre exposure to food cues on

the eating behavior of restrained and unrestrained eaters. Appetite, 28, 33–47.

Fedoroff, I. C., Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (2003). The specificity of restrained versus

unrestrained eaters’ responses to food cues: General desire to eat, or craving for the cued

food? Appetite, 41, 7–13.

Finlayson, G., King, N., & Blundell, J. (2008). The role of implicit wanting in relation to

explicit liking and wanting for food: Implications for appetite control. Appetite, 50,120–

127.

Fischler, I. S. & Bloom, P. A. (1979). Automatic and attentional processes in the effects of

sentence contexts on word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,

18, 1-20.

Fishbach, A., Friedman, R. S., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2003). Leading us not unto temptation:

Momentary allurements elicit overriding goal activation. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 84, 296-309.

Forster, J., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). Accessibility from active and fulfilled

goals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,41, 220–239.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1996). The volitional benefits of planning. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A.

Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action (pp. 287–312). New York: Guilford.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans.

American Psychologist, 54, 493–503.

Goschke, T., & Kuhl, J. (1993). Representation of intentions: Persisting activation in

memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19,

1211–1226

Harris, J. L., Bargh, J. A., & Brownell, K. D. (2009). Priming effects of television food

advertising on eating behaviour. Health Psychology, 28,404–413.

Hart, K. E., & Chiovari, P. (1998). Inhibition of eating behaviour: negative cognitive effects

of dieting. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54, 427–430.

Harvey, K., Kemps, E., & Tiggemann, M. (2005). The nature of imagery processes

underlying food cravings. British Journal of Health Psychology,10, 49–56.

Herman, C. P., & Polivy, J. (2007). Norm-violation, norm-adherence, and overeating.

Collegium antropologicum, 31, 55–62.

Herman, C. P., & Polivy, J. (2008). External cues in the control of food intake in humans: the

sensory-normative distinction. Physiology & Behaviour, 94, 722–728.

31

Hill, J. O., & Peters, J. C. (1998). Environmental contributions to the obesity epidemic.

Science, 280, 1371–1374.

Houben, K. (2011). Overcoming the urge to splurge: the role of inhibitory control in eating

behaviour. Journal of Behaviour Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 42,384-388.

Houben, K., & Jansen, A. (2011). Training inhibitory control: a recipe for resistingsweet

temptations. Appetite, 56, 345-349.

Knowles, M. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2008). Benefits of membership: The activation and

amplification of group identities in response to social rejection. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1200-1213.

Kuhl, J. (1987). Action control: The maintenance of motivational states. In F. Halisch & J.

Kuhl (Eds.), Motivation, intention, and volition (pp. 279–291). New York: Springer.

Kuhl, J., & Kaze´n-Saad, M. (1988). A motivational approach to- volition: Activation and

deactivation of memory representations related to unfulfilled intentions. In V. Hamilton,

G. H. Bower, &N. H. Frijda (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on emotion and motivation (pp.

63–85).

LeGoff, D. B., & Spigelman, M. N. (1987). Salivary response to olfactory food stimuli as a

function of dietary restraint and body weight. Appetite,8, 29–35.

Lowe, M. R., & Butryn, M. L. (2007). Hedonic hunger. A new dimension of appetite?

Physiology & Behaviour, 91, 432–439.

Mann, T., Tomiyama, A. J., Westling, E., Lew, A.-M., Samuels, B., & Chatman, J. (2007).

Medicare’s search for effective obesity treatments: Diets are not the answer. American

Psychologist, 62, 220–233.

Moskowitz, G. B., Li, P., & Kirk, E. R. (2004). The implicit volition model: On the

preconscious regulation of temporarily adopted goals. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 317–404). New York: Academic Press.

Mela DJ. Determinants of food choice: relationships with obesity and weight control. Obesity

Research 2001;9:249–55.

Mela, D. J. (2006). Eating for pleasure or just wanting to eat? Reconsidering sensory hedonic

responses as a driver of obesity. Appetite, 47, 10–17.

Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O. & Shaver, P.R. (2002). Activation of the attachment system in

adulthood: Threat-related primes increase the accessibility of mental representations of

attachment figures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 881-895.

Miller, W. C. (1999). How effective are traditional dietary and exercise interventions for

weight loss? Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 31, 1129–1134.

Mizutani, N., Okamoto, M., Yamaguchi, Y., Kusakabe, Y., Dan, I., & Yamanaka, T. (2010).

Package images modulate flavour perception for orange juice. Food Quality and

Preference, 21(7), 867–872.

Papies, E. K., & Hamstra, P. (2010). Goal priming and eating behaviour: Enhancing self-

regulation by environmental cues. Health Psychology, 29,384–388.

Polivy, J., Coleman, J., & Herman, C. P. (2005). The effect of deprivation on food cravings

and eating behaviour in restrained and unrestrained eaters. International Journal of Eating

Disorders, 38, 301–309.

Provencher V, Polivy J, Herman C.P( 2009) Perceived healthiness of food. If it’s healthy, you

can eat more! Appetite, 52:340-4.

Shah, J. Y., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2002). Priming against your will: How accessible

alternatives affect goal pursuit. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 384–396.

Shah, J. Y., Friedman, R., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2002). Forgetting all else: On the

antecedents and consequences of goal shielding. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 83, 1261–1280.

Stroebe, W. (2000). Social Psychology and Health (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University

Press.

32

Stunkard A.J, Messick S. (1985) The three-factor eating questionnaire to measure dietary

restraint, disinhibition and hunger. Journal of Psychosomatic Research;29:71-83

Van Koningsbruggen, G. M., Stroebe, W., & Aarts, H. (2011). Through the eyes of dieters:

Biased size perception of food following tempting food primes. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 47, 293–299.

Veling, H. et al. (2011) Using stop signals to inhibit chronic dieters’ responses toward

palatable foods. Behaviour, Research and Therapy. 49, 771–780

Veling, H., Holland, R.W., & van Knippenberg, A. (2008). When approach motivation and

behavioural inhibition collide: behaviour regulation through stimulus devaluation. Journal

of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1013-1019

Wadden, T. A., Brownell, K. D., & Foster, G. D. (2002). Obesity: Responding to the global

epidemic. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 510–525.

Ward, A., & Mann, T. (2000). Don’t mind if I do: disinhibited eating under cognitive load.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 753-763.

.

33

Appendix (1)

34

Appendix (2)

35

The multi-sensory perception of flavor: Can packaging affect general perceptions of taste?

Female Volunteers wanted This study is designed to test if the packaging of a well-known beverage brand can affect the taste of any snacks consumed subsequently. Can you attend the cognitive labs in the Institute of Psychological Sciences at the University of Leeds? Can you attend on three separate occasions? In the first session you will be provided with a lunch of cheese sandwiches) with yoghurt. You will be asked to return 2 hours later and asked to taste and rate a selection of foods. In the second session, you will again be provided with lunch consisting of the cheese sandwich and yoghurt and return in two hours. You will be asked to complete a questionnaire and will then be asked to taste and rate a drink after which you will be asked to taste and rate a sample of snacks. In the third session the above procedure will be repeated however at the end of the tasting session you will be asked to complete a set of questionnaires.

You will be compensated for your time with £15 of Love to Shop Vouchers.

If interested please contact Farhat on - ps11fkm@leeds.ac.uk

This study has received ethical approval by the Institute of Psychological Sciences (Ethics # 12-0081).

You can unsubscribe from the mailing list at any time by re-visiting http://www.psyc.leeds.ac.uk/research/studies/index.htm and selecting 'Leave'.

MSc Postgraduate student

Psychological Approaches to Health

Institute of Psychological Sciences University of Leeds

Leeds

LS2 9JT

36

Appendix (3)

37

Screening Questionnaire

Please complete all of the following questions and return to ps11fkm@leeds.ac.uk.

1) Date: (dd/mm/yy)

2) What is your date of birth? (dd/mm/yy)

3) What is your age?

4) What is your native language (e.g. English)?

5) Are you: Male Female

6) What is your height: and your current weight:

7) a) Are you a student? Yes No

b) If yes, what are you currently studying?

8) a) Do you have any food allergies? Yes No

b) If yes please detail:

9) Please check the boxes below for foods that you would be willing to eat in the study.

Are you willing to eat:

Cheese sandwich with white bread Strawberry yoghurt

Snack a Jacks (salted rice cakes) Marshmallows

Digestive biscuits (chocolate coated) Cheese savouries

10) If you are unwilling to eat any of these foods please detail reasons why:

38

11) How would you describe your general health?

Excellent Good Okay Poor

12) Are you diabetic? Yes No

13) a) Do you have any other metabolic problems? Yes No

b) If yes, please specify:

14) a) Have you EVER suffered from an eating disorder? Yes No

b) If yes, please detail:

15) a) Do you have any medical conditions? Yes No

b) If yes, please specify:

16) Please give details of any medication you are currently taking (including oral contraceptives):

17) Do you have any food allergies? Yes No

18) Are you lactose intolerant? Yes No

19) Do you have dyslexia? Yes No

20) a) Do you have any other reading related problems? Yes No

b) If yes, please detail:

21) Are you currently on a diet either to lose or maintain weight? Please tick:

Lose weight Maintain Weight Neither

22) Do you usually eat breakfast? Yes No

39

23) Do you smoke? Yes, regularly Yes, occasionally No, given up No never

24) Do you do regular exercise? Yes No

25) If yes, how many times a week do you exercise? One to four More than four

26) Generally, what sort of exercise do you do?

27) In general, how healthy would you rate your diet?

Not at all healthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 extremely healthy

28) Please provide a contact email address that you can check regularly to allow ease of arranging a

study session:

29) Please also provide a telephone number that we can contact you on:

30) Would you be interested in hearing about further research? If so, we can send you emails when

opportunities arise. You would be under no obligation to take part; this is simply an information

service.

Yes, I would like to receive No, I would not like to receive

emails about further research emails about future research.

Thank you for taking the time to complete this form.

Please return to ps11fkm@leeds.ac.uk

You will be contacted to be advised of eligibility and to arrange participation shortly.

40

Appendix (4)

41

Changes to packaging affects taste perception: does

this extend to the taste of other foods?

To raise awareness of the need to protect endangered species Coca Cola recently changed their

iconic red cans to white versions featuring white polar bears. However, despite no changes to the

ingredients of the can, consumers complained that the taste of the drink had changed. This is an

example of how information from different senses, such as vision, can influence our taste

perception. The multi-sensory perception of flavour or in other words, how information from

different senses (such as the sight, smell and sound of food) affects taste perception has been well

documented in psychology (Auvray & Spence, 2007). However, the effect of exposure to coloured

packaging on taste perception of subsequent foods has not yet been studied. In this study we are

interested in how exposure to well- known packaging may shape taste perception of subsequent

foods.In this study you will be exposed to a drinks packaging and asked to rate your associations

with the packaging and taste. You will then be asked to taste and rate several different confectionary

foods. References Auvray & Spence (2007). The multisensory perception of flavour. Consciousness

and cognition, 17, 1016- 1031.

Institute of Psychological Sciences

FACULTY OF MEDICINE AND HEALTH

42

Appendix (5)

43

The multi-sensory perception of flavour: can packaging affect general perceptions of taste?

Researchers: Farhat Mahmood, Nicola Buckland and Marion Hetherington The multi-sensory perception of flavour, or in other words, how information from multiple senses such as sight, smell and sound affect taste has been widely documented in psychology (Auvray & Spence, 2007). This study aims to extend our understanding of the multisensory perception of flavour by examining how exposure to familiar packaging may influence taste perception of subsequent foods. For this study you will need to attend the cognitive labs on three separate testing days (testing days must be separated by at least 7 days). In all test sessions you will be provided with a set lunch and then asked to return to the laboratory 2 hours later. The first test session is to check your eligibility for the study, this session involves completing taste rating scales of the study foods. In the next two studies you will be asked to rate packaging and to taste and rate confectionary snack foods. For each session please ensure that you: 1) do not consume any alcohol the day before and the day of testing; 2) do not eat for up to two hours before the start of the experiment; and3) keep physical activity similar across all three test session. The lunch session will last around 20 minutes and the second part of the study (packaging and rating of food) will last around 30 minutes. Upon completion of this study you will receive £15 of love-to-shop vouchers. Please circle:

1. I confirm that I have read and understood the above information. YES / NO 2. I understand that I can withdraw from the study at any point YES / NO 3. I confirm that I have no food allergies YES / NO 4. I confirm I do not have diabetes or any other metabolic conditions YES / NO

Participant Name ___________________________________

Participant NUMBER _________________________________

Signature ___________________________________________

Date _____

Institute of Psychological Sciences

FACULTY OF MEDICINE AND HEALTH

44

45

Appendix (6)

46

Institute of Psychological Sciences FACULTY OF MEDICINE AND HEALTH

Outline of sessions

Below is a guide of what to expect when you come to the HARU to participate in the

study.

Session one

You will be asked to fill in a consent form and details of prior food consumption.

You will be provided with a set lunch of cheese sandwiches, yoghurt and water and complete a set of

Visual Analogue Scales (VAS).

You will leave the HARU for two hours and return to complete a snack tasting session and fill in some

more VAS.

Finally you will complete a cognitive alertness test on the computer

Session two

You will be asked to fill in details of prior food consumption.

You will be provided with a set lunch of cheese sandwiches, yoghurt and water and complete a set of

Visual Analogue Scales (VAS).

You will leave the HARU for two hours and return to complete a packaging task along with filling in

some VAS

You will then be asked to complete a cognitive alertness test on the computer

You will be asked to complete another snack tasting session and fill in some more VAS

Session three

You will be asked to fill in details of prior food consumption.

You will be provided with a set lunch of cheese sandwiches, yoghurt and water and complete a set of

Visual Analogue Scales (VAS).

You will leave the HARU for two hours and return to complete a packaging task along with filling in

some VAS

You will then be asked to complete a cognitive alertness test on the computer.

You will be asked to complete another snack tasting session and fill in some more VAS

You will asked to complete a set of questionnaires on the computer.

You will be given a de-brief and paid.

47

Appendix (7)

48

How HUNGRY do you feel right now?

Not at all Extremely

hungry hungry

How TIRED do you feel right now?

Not at all Extremely

tired tired

How strong is your desire to EAT right now?

Not at all Extremely

strong strong

How HAPPY do you feel right now?

Not at all Extremely

happy happy

How FULL do you feel right now?

Not at all Extremely

full full

How RELAXED do you feel right now?

Not at all Extremely

relaxed relaxed

How STRESSED do you feel right now?

Not at all Extremely

stressed stressed

49

Appendix (8)

50

Prior Food Consumption

1. What meals have you eaten today? (Please circle)

Breakfast Lunch

If you have eaten breakfast, what did you eat (please specify brands of food if relevant)?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

2. What time did you eat breakfast? _________________

3. If you have eaten lunch, what did you eat (please specify brands of food if relevant)?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

4. What time did you eat lunch? _________________

5. What snacks have you eaten before arriving here today (please specify brands of food if

relevant)?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

6. What time did you eat each of these snacks?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

51

Appendix (9)

52

Food Analysis Sensory Task

Below is a Food Analysis Sensory Task (F.A.S.T) (Kausar et al., 2009) which consists of questions relating to the four samples of food on the desk. Please taste each of the food samples in the order they appear on this sheet. Please rinse your mouth with water between each food sample. Please help yourself to as much or as little of the food and water as you need to complete the taste rating task accurately.

You have 10 minutes to complete the Food Analysis Sensory Task (F.A.S.T)

Please read the questions carefully and provide a score ranging from 1-10 with 1 as the lowest score possible and 10 being the highest.

e.g. How sweet is the sample?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (not at all sweet) (extremely sweet)

Please remain in the room till the experimenter returns.

Please help yourself to as much or little of the food as you like whilst you wait for the experimenter.

Cheese Savouries

Rice Cakes

Mini Marshmallows

Chocolate Counters

Visual

Based on how the sample looks how would you rate its palatability (tastiness)?

How would you rate the samples saltiness?

Tactition (Feel)

How appealing does the sample

Feel in your mouth?

How crunchy does the sample feel whilst eating it?

Gustation (Taste)

How appealing does the sample taste?

How important was this sense in your perception

of flavour of the sample?

53

Appendix (10)

54

Packaging Task

On the table in front of you there is a beverage can and a sample of this beverage in

a glass.

For this part of the task we would like you to taste and rate the beverage sample on

the scales provided whilst focusing on the appearance of the can (packaging).

Before answering the questions below, please take a moment to look at the

packaging of the drink. Please think about:

1) The colour used on the can;

2) The shape of the can;

3) The shape of any designs on the can (e.g. lines or graphics).

The task is broken down in to two parts; part 1 is rating the flavour of the sample and

part 2 is rating the texture of the sample. Please follow the instructions on the page.

55

Part 1: Taste – Flavour

Instructions

1. Please rinse your mouth with the water provided.

2. Take half the sample in your mouth and hold the sample in your mouth for 10 seconds.

3. During the 10 seconds please focus your eyes on the packaging and think about the flavour of the sample in your mouth.

4. After the 10 seconds please feel free to swallow the sample and answer the following questions 1. How acidic is the drinks flavour?

Not at all

acidic

Extreme

ly acidic

2. How strong is the intensity of the drink flavour?

Not at all

strong

Extreme

ly

strong

3. How sweet does the drink taste?

Not at all

sweet

Extreme

ly sweet

4. How strongly do you associate the colour of the packaging with the sweetness of the beverage?

Weakly

associat

ed

Strongly

associat

ed

BREAK: Please rinse your mouth with the water provided. Then follow the

instructions on the next page.

56

Part 2 - Texture

Instructions

1. Take the remaining portion of the sample in your mouth and hold the sample in your mouth for 10 seconds.

2. Whilst the sample is in your mouth direct your eyes to the packaging and think about the sensations of the drink on your tongue

3. After the 10 seconds please feel free to swallow the sample and answer the following questions.

1. Thinking about the temperature of the drink, how cold does the drink feel in your mouth?

Not at all

cold

Extreme

ly cold

2. How thick does the drink feel in your mouth?

Not at all

thick

Extreme

ly thick

3. How fizzy does the drink feel in your mouth?

Not at all

fizzy

Extreme

ly fizzy

4. How strongly do you associate the colour of the packaging with the fizz of the beverage?

Weakly

associat

ed

Strongly

associat

ed

When you have completed the packaging task please complete the final rating

scale on the next page.

57

Appendix (11)