cognitive demand

Question 1

looking at cognitive demand separately

Answer 1

• Evidence to suggest that cognitive demands can
  result in disinhibition in restrained eaters
• Certain types of stress seem to be more likely to elicit
  disinhibition (ego- threat versus physical)
• But are cognitive demands simply a confounding
  factor in the tasks used to induce stress?
• Are cognitive demand and stress independent?
• Can we target them independently?

Question 2

cognitive demand vs ego threat

Answer 2

Wallis & Heatherington (2004) compared effects of egothreat and cognitive demand vs a neutral condition using
similar experimental manipulations (modifications of Stroop
colour-naming task)
* 38 females, 3 conditions
* Mood measured at baseline, post-task, post-snack
* 150g chocolate buttons
* DEBQ restraint & emotional eating

Stress Conditions: Each participant was exposed to three different conditions on separate occasions:

Neutral (Control) Task: A non-stressful task.

Ego-Threatening Task: A task designed to threaten the participant’s self-esteem or self-concept.

Incongruent Stroop Task: A cognitively demanding task requiring participants to name the color of a word that spells a different color (e.g., the word “red” printed in blue ink), creating cognitive interference.

Eating Behavior Assessment: After each task, participants were provided with chocolate, and their intake was measure

Question 3

cognitive demand vs ego threat findings

Answer 3

Findings:

Increased Intake After Stress: Overall, participants consumed more chocolate following both the ego-threatening and cognitively demanding tasks compared to the neutral task.

Restrained Eaters: Individuals with high restraint scores ate more after both the ego-threatening and cognitive demand tasks than in the control condition.

Emotional Eaters: Individuals with high emotional eating scores increased their intake only after the ego-threatening task, not after the cognitively demanding task.

Conclusions:

The study suggests that different types of stressors can lead to increased food intake, with variations based on individual eating behaviors:

Ego-Threatening Stressors(emotional): More likely to trigger increased eating in emotional eaters, possibly as a means to cope with negative emotions or reduced self-esteem (people ate more in ego threat (23) than cognitive demand (15))_.

Cognitive Demand Stressors(incongurent): Can lead to increased intake in restrained eaters, potentially due to the depletion of cognitive resources needed to maintain dietary restraint.

restraint eaters increased intake after both tasks relative to control but emotional eaters increased intake after ego threat task only

confirms limited capacity hypothesis

Why This Confirms the Hypothesis:
The Stroop task taxed participants’ cognitive resources by requiring them to focus on incongruent stimuli (e.g., saying the ink color of a word that spells a different color). This created cognitive fatigue.
When cognitive resources were depleted, restrained eaters could no longer maintain their self-control or dietary restraint, leading to overeating.
This directly supports the idea that self-regulation (e.g., resisting food) is resource-dependent and can fail when cognitive capacity is reduced.

Restrained eaters rely on cognitive resources to enforce dietary rules, so when these resources are depleted, they lose control over eating.
Emotional eaters rely on emotional regulation resources, and ego threats specifically deplete their ability to manage emotions, leading to overeating as a coping mechanism.