eating behaviour Flashcards
early exposure (SLT)
- Behaviours are a result of observation (of Role Models) and imitation
- We retain the memory of the action/behaviour and when a similar situation arises, we might be motivated to imitate it.
- Motivation may be due to vicarious reinforcement (rewarded for +ve behaviour/no consequence of –ve behaviour)
- So if peers/parents enjoy a certain food, we will be influenced by this.
early exposure (classical conditioning)
- Associating a neutral stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus
- Pleasant experiences associated with neutral stimulus (e.g. parents attention on a birthday with birthday cake)
- But CC can also lead to negative attitude to food (e.g. if we eat something while ill, we might associate it with the ill feeling and ignore it in the future)
early exposure (The Mere Exposure Effect)
- The more exposed we are to something, the more familiar we become with it, which results in a positive attitude towards it.
- If we are exposed to unfamiliar foods, we are likely to have negative attitudes towards them
research evidence SLT
Birch et al. (1980)
Peer Influence to change children’s preference for vegetables
Children sat next to another child who liked different vegetables to them for 4 days (peas vs carrots)
Children showed a definite shift in vegetable preference which was still evident in a follow up study several weeks later.
This supports SLT as a theory because it shows that if children witness their peers eating a different vegetable, they will be likely to imitate them.
It has high validity due to the follow up study (long term)
Ogden (2004):
Parental Influence
Reported consistent correlations between parents and their children in terms of eating habits.
This study shows a correlational link, but there is an issue of causality.
The food preference may be due to availability – i.e. parents buy what they like, so kids eat it because there are no other options.
Self-report issue
research evidence CC
Classical Conditioning
Birch et al. (1980):
Food paired with a reward
Gave children food in association with positive adult attention
Found to increase food preference, but it doesn’t prove that it changes attitude, only behaviour.
Garcia et al. (1974):
Food and physiological consequences
Rats in a cage illuminated with red lights (NS)
Given a dose of radiation (UCS) in sweet water (NS) – this caused the sickness (UCR)
Later avoided sweet water (CS for CR)
But didn’t avoid the red lights (no CR) – innately know – not all food preference is learned.
This demonstrates that classical conditioning can shape attitudes to food
CC doesn’t explain why the rat didn’t avoid the red light – not sufficient
research evidence mere exposure effect
Birch and Marlin (1982)
Humans create a preference for things merely because they are familiar with them. This arises from exposure on a number of occasions
Introduced 2 year olds to new foods either 20, 10, 5 or 1 time(s)
Found that more exposure led to increased preference
8 – 10 times is usually necessary for a significant shift.
We are generally neophobic (fear of new things)
Show avoidance of new foods
Like familiar foods – once given a few times, it becomes familiar.
early exposure IDA
Nature/Nurture Debate
Most factors relating to early exposure are purely environmental and largely work on behaviourist principles. They ignore biological factors; for example, our eating behaviour is also influenced by hormones and neural mechanisms.
The biological theory is reductionist – it reduces a complex human behaviour to a very minimalist and limited theory. This leads to other factors (such as genetics) being ignored.
practical applications of early exposure
Influence of parents and peers
Give children food with positive attention
Exposure to new foods
Exposure – introduce children to new foods over a long period of time
Physiological consequences of eating certain foods
Sickness
Stress - individual differences
Greeno and Wing, 1994 This suggests that some people are more vulnerable to the effects of stress on food and eating behaviour. There are 4 individual characteristics that explain why some people increase or change food intake when subject to stress. 4 types of eaters: External Emotional Restrained (gender also has an impact)
External eaters
Individuals who eat in response to environmental cues
Eat when food is available rather than when hungry
Eat in response to food cues (e.g. sight or smell of food)
Emotional eaters
Individuals who fail to distinguish between feelings and hunger
When anxious or emotionally aroused, they misinterpret this emotion as hunger
Could be due to inconsistent parenting
Restrained easters
Individuals deliberately try to limit their food intake (e.g. on a diet)
They use willpower to suppress food intake
Will power is undermined by stress
external eaters prediction
External eaters are more likely to increase food intake when stressed as long as there is food available. Stress makes them more aware of available food.
emotional eaters prediction
Emotional eaters will increase food intake when stressed as they experience their anxiety as hunger
restrained eaters prediction
Restrained eaters increase their eating while stressed, whereas people who do not have to try hard to control their eating are unaffected by stress.
gender and eating prediction
Women are more likely to eat under stress than men, particularly certain foods.
Women are also more likely to be restrained eaters
research evidence for stress and eating
Oliver et al (2000)
found that stress didn’t alter overall food intake or appetite.
-Stressed emotional eaters consumed more sweet/high-fat foods than un-stressed non-emotional eaters.
-Women scored higher on emotional eating than men
-Shows support for individual differences for types of food consumed when stressed and a difference between men and women, but not overall intake.
Conner et al (1999)
measured number and severity of daily hassles and number of snacks consumed.
-Pps also asked to complete a questionnaire to assess their eating behaviour: restrained eating, emotional eating and external eating
-Found that external eaters had a strong, positive correlation between hassles and snacking.
-No significant relationship between the same factors for low external eaters, emotional eaters and restrained eaters.
IDA for stress and eating behaviour
Deterministic
External eaters may take on a fatalistic approach to dieters – the theory is deterministic and suggests that external eaters will eat food on site and there is little they can do to avoid this.
Nature/Nurture
On the nurture side of the debate – suggests that purely environmental factors influence eating behaviour
Ghrelin and leptin have both been proven to have an impact on eating – as Carlson showed on ‘ob’ mice – missing leptin, and when injected with it, they stopped eating and lost weight
practical applications of stress and eating
Dieting could be made more successful if stress is reduced – only if external eaters?
outline the boundary model
- There is a ‘set-point’ that our weight generally stays at – and should return to if we go over or under this weight.
- If we go under (i.e. during an illness we eat less) hunger is stimulated and we eat more
- If we go over (i.e. over Christmas we eat more) there in an inhibition of hunger and we eat less.
- This creates a psychological boundary influencing how much we eat
what is a cognitive boundary? (boundary model)
Dieters set cognitive boundaries (lower than the physiological boundary) to lose weight – an unrestrained eater will eat until their body says they are full (physiological boundary), but a dieter will eat until their cognitive boundary – this means they are usually still hungry.
what happens when a dieter passes their ‘cognitive boundary’ ?
If for whatever reason (stress or special occasion) a dieter passes their cognitive boundary, they will continue to their physiological boundary due to the ‘what the hell effect’ (or the Cognitive dissonance effect)
The dieter will feel a sense of ‘why bother?’ and continue to eat.
Due to restrained eaters being quite vulnerable to the effects of stress (individual differences model), it happens quite often – this could explain why dieting is often unsuccessful.
boundary model Herman and Mack
- the more unrestrained eaters pre-loaded (given food to see whether consumption of this food affected subsequent food intake – milkshakes, 0, 1 or 2), the less food they subsequently consume (ice cream)
- restrained eaters that didn’t pre-load, consumed the least food subsequently, but those that did consumed more (those that pre-loaded most subsequently consumed most)
- found a correlation between higher restrained eating and the more they ate after two milkshakes
how does Herman and Mack support the boundary model
Support for boundary model because restrained eaters have their cognitive boundary broken by the milkshake, so the ‘what the hell effect’ kicked in and they ate more ice cream than the no pre-loading group.
boundary model IDA
Deterministic
Suggests that eating behaviour is beyond our control and that humans lack free will
Suggests that the diet will fail if cognitive boundary is lower than the set point
When stressed, it suggests that they will overeat
Simplistic
Athletes and anorexics still restrict their diet, but don’t suffer from ‘what the hell effect’.
Anorexics are hungry but won’t eat more if they go over their cognitive boundary
Leads to sections of society being ignored
briefly describe the theory of ironic processes of mental control (denial)
thought suppression can have a contradictory effect of making the thoughts that we are meant to be suppressing, more vivid.
research evidence for denial theory
Wenger et al (1987)
Asked pps to NOT THINK about a white bear and ring the bell when they do
Asked pps to THINK about a white bear and ring the bell when they do
Those that were asked not to think of the white bear rang their bells more often
This supports the theory because when a dieter is trying not to eat food, they are trying not to think about food either – but because this is a cognitive decision to not think about food, the only thing they think about anyway is food, so they end up eating it anyway.
But it doesn’t explain individual differences
practical applications of denial theory
Rather than completely cutting food altogether, we should moderate the amount we eat to feed the temptation but still reduce the amount we eat.
In therapy, you could encourage dieters to think about food – alter the thoughts, don’t suppress them.
cognitive behaviour model and successful dieting
in order to diet successfully, the dieter needs to hold certain beliefs, but also behaviour in certain ways
cognitive behavioural model (Cognitive elements-beliefs)
Psychological model of obesity – if individuals believe obesity is due to emotional eating, low self-esteem/depression, then dieting can be successful as weight loss is possible
Motivation for weight loss – personal reasons can motivate people to lose weight (e.g. self-esteem or attractiveness)
cognitive behavioural model (behavioural element- operent conditioning)
Small successes in weight loss are positively reinforcing (form the self and others) as the individual believes that the weight loss is due to their own behaviour/dieting
Positive reinforcement strengthens behaviours, so dieting is likely to continue and succeed.
