Eating behaviour Flashcards
List the factors influencing attitudes to food and eating behaviour
1) Early learning and experience
2) Mood, including stress
How does early learning influence attitudes to food and eating behaviour?
Early learning shapes eating behaviour and food preferences through exposure to food social learning, operant conditions and classical conditioning.
What is neophobia?
Fear of new things
How does exposure and neophobia relate?
Exposure to foods helps overcome neophobia, we prefer food we are familiar with
SLT’s explanation for eating behaviour
Observing other people’s behaviour
Parental attitudes to food and eating behaviour
Vicarious reinforcement (seeing someone get rewarded)
Vicarious punishment (seeing someone get punished)
Attention, Retention, motivation
Evaluation of SLT and eating behaviour
SUPPORT- Birch: gave children food in association with positive adult attention to change food preference.
Lowe: showed children “food dudes” video and shows that food preference can be changed through observation.
PA- SLT can be used to make children eat more healthy
Birch study evaluation for SLT eating behaviour
Birch study supports SLT because the children observed their peers behaviour which influenced their own eating behaviour. The children changed their preference for vegetables for example they didn’t like peas at the start but by the end were eating them. This shows how social learning can make a shift in food preference.
Outline Birch’s study
Used peer modelling to change children’s preference for vegetables. On 4 consecutive days the children were seated at lunch next to children who preferred a different vegetable to themselves (peas VS carrots). They found a definite shift in their vegetable preference which was evident in a follow up assessment several weeks later. Those who initially didnt like peas at the outset did like them by the end of the study.
Outline Lowe’s study
Children were shown videos of “food dudes” (older children who were enthusiastically consuming food that younger kids used to refuse). Results showed that exposure to the “food dudes” significantly changed the children preference and increased their consumption of fruit and veg.
Exposure to food and eating behaviour
- The higher number of exposures to food the more likely -the child’s preferences would shift.
- Found 8-10 exposures needed to shift preference
- Prefer food we are most familiar (exposed to regularly)
Outline Birch and Marlin’s study
They introduced 2 year old children to novel foods over a 6 week period. One food presented 20 times, one 10 times, one 5 times and one remained new. The results showed a direct relationship between exposure and food preference. Found 8-10 exposures needed. Suggests we like food we are most familiar with.
Evaluation for exposure to food Nature and nurture argument for eating behaviour
NURTURE: SLT- learning to like foods e.t.c
can be overcome by parents and caregivers
NATURE: neophobic towards some food so early exposure might make child less neophobic
support :Benton- found that sweet foods are effective in reducing distress in young babies therefore it may be innate.
IDA: EEA- adaptive to avoid new foods incase poisonous
TOO SIMPLISTIC EXPLANATION
Factor that focuses on how much we eat
Mood (inc. stress)
Outline research into mood as an influence to our attitudes to food and eating behaviours
Garg et al- conducted a study which looked at the amount of popcorn ppts consumed when watching a sad film vs happy film. Ppts consumed more int he sad film than happy which shows how mood can effect the quantity of food we consume. Eat more when sad.
Evaluation of research into mood and eating behaviour
Garg et al- repeated measures design accounts for individual differences for example some participants having a greater preference for popcorn or that flavour more than others. They also closely matched the independent variables through rating, running time and genre which allows researches to rule out criticisms of boredom and determine they are measuring participants mood. By isolating the IV this explains how mood enhancement as aa factor of eating.
Biological explanation of eating behaviour and mood
One explanation that has been proposed for such mood enhancing effects is the OPIATE hypothesis. Neurotransmitters called ENDORPHINS regulate activity in the brain’s reward pathways. These pathways make us feel good to encourage biologically important behaviours such as eating.
Evaluation for biological explanation of eating behaviour and mood
Evidence for this explanation comes from research into naloxone. This drug blocks endorphins receptors; it also reduces food intake, especially sweet foods and suppress’ thoughts about food.
IDA: Doesn’t account for nurture aspect solely nature (biological approach)
Cognitive: override biological factors (losing weight)
Explains comfort eating: Behavioural approach negative reinforcement (comfort eating)
What is naloxone?
A drug that blocks endorphins receptors and reduces food intake (especially sweet food) and thoughts about food.
Why don’t we eat much if we take naloxone?
Because it blocks endorphins receptors which means you don’t feel any emotion when eating and therefore we eat less. Suppresses thoughts related to food also.
Why does eating cheer us up?
Eating stimulates the release of endorphins
Stages of the General effect model (GEM)
Stress leads ==> physiological change ==> eating
Theory of General effect model
Everybody eats more when stressed
Stages of Individual differences model
Differences in learning, attitude or biology
High Vulnerability= stress, physical/psychological change, promotes eating
Low vulnerability= Stress, physical/psychological change, does not promote eating
Theory of individual differences model
Only certain people eat more when stressed
Vulnerable groups suggested by IDM
Emotional eater: associate hunger + anxiety, response to emotion is eating
External eaters: eating in response (sight and smell) rather than internal (hunger cue)
Restrained eaters: people who have to work to control their eating (dieters) undermining self control
Compare IDM and GEM
IDM accounts for nature and nurture and discuss’ differences in vulnerability not generalising to everyone by having 3 categories.
Evaluation for IDM
Connor et al weakly supports IDM model as there is a correlation between daily hassles and snacking. Supports external eaters saying they are more vulnerable however doesn’t support restrained and emotional eaters.
Daily hassles (operationalised measure) +
Connor is only one study, other research summarised in a review by Greeno and Wing showed quite a lot of evidence for the importance of restrained eating as a key individual different but (unlike connor) this evidence is lab based.
Outline Garg’s study into mood enhancement and eating behaviour
to examine how manipulating happiness and sadness through content of a movie could influence consumption of hedonistic food such as buttered popcorn.
Participants watching full length movies that evoked positive or negative effects (sweet home Alabama vs Love story). Recruited for 2 hour 2 day study. Films matched on key variables running time, genre, critic rating, box office success e.t.c. Viewing rooms like living rooms 5-8 ppts. Given 180g popcorn + calorie free drinks
End of movie ppts asked to give assessment of movie 1= sad 9= happy, rate mood, say what made them happy/sad, popcorn container weighed again.
Results showed that ppts watching the sad filmed consumed 28% more than happy movie.
Outline Connor et al study into stress and eating behaviour
33 female and 27 male students asked to keep record of number and severity of daily hassles and number of snacks consumed over a period of 7 days.
PPts asked to complete questionnaire that assessed 3 dimensions of eating behaviour; restrained eating, emotional eating and external eating.
Found that ppts who scored highly on measures of external eating, there was a statistically significant positive correlation between hassles and snacking.
By contrast no significant relationship between these two variable was found for ppts who rated low on external eating.
No significant results found for those who emotional and restrained eaters.
Discuss the role of one factor which influences attitudes to food and/ or eating behaviour (Mood)
Mood:
AO1: IDM and GEM models. Explain emotional, restrained and external. Opiate hypothesis (endorphins) reward pathways
AO2: Garg study support for opiate hypothesis
Methodological evaluation- variables accounted for, repeated measures.
Connor et al- stress, daily hassles + snacking support for external
IDA: Behaviourism could also explain comfort eating: eating is negatively reinforced as it removes feelings of sadness. However the opiate hypothesis based on the biological approach goes further than this as it explains the physical mechanism through which this negative reinforcement occurs. it is still not a full explanation though because comfort eating could come about through social learning- for example a child could learn to do this from vicarious reinforcement gained by seeing one of her parents escaping feelings of distress by eating.
Discuss the role of one factor which influences attitudes to food and/or eating behaviour (early learning)
Early learning:
AO1: SLT- attention, retention, motivation. Vicarious punishment/reinforcement. Observational. Use of role models (child pays attention to a peer eating peas, identify peer as role model it enhances motivation to eat peas and therefore changing food preference).
AO2- Support for SLT comes from Birch who found that children changed their food preferences (from peas to carrots or vice versa) through watching their peers eat vegetables. This support the idea of observational learning as they changed their preferences after watching the eating behaviour.
Early learning suggests that eating is shaped only by nurture. however the idea of neophobia is rooted in an evolutionary mechanism as avoiding unfamiliar and potentially poisonous foods had an adaptive benefit. This shows that nature is also important to food preferences, a point supported by research such as Desor who showed that babies were born with a preference for sweet foods (innate)
PA- Parents could make sure they eat healthily in front of their children, advertising campaigns designed to encourage healthy eating could use respected celebrities or feature same age role models that children can identify with.
Explanations for the failure and success of dieting
Weight set point
Boundary Model
Weight set point model
Bennett and Gurin
WSP- largely under genetic control
Body has a range of weight that is comfortable within (5% either side of current weight)
If you go below set point you can plateau and can’t lose anymore as metabolic rate decreases
Internal system regulates % of body fat and weight- optimum weight for mood
Dieting puts us in opposition to WSP
Evidence for WSP
Keys et al did a semi-starvation study during World War II. PPts were young men who lost 25% of body weight. Consumed 50% of their normal daily calories. Initially lost weight quickly but weight loss reached a plateau and men became irritable, hungry and obsessed with thoughts about food. Metabollic rates decreased significantly and became lethargic, avoiding physical activity and energy expenditure. Strong urges to overeat.
Support for WSP
Keys et al supports the weight set point theory as an explanation for the failure of dieting as the men who consumed 50% of their normal daily calories reached a plateau. This was due to the decrease of their metabolic rate which meant they couldn’t lose anymore weight at the same rate as they were burning calories slower even though they were eating the same amount of calories which leads to them putting on weight. The Men became irritable which supports WSP as our optimum mood is altered by our weight set point. The strong urges to overeat and obsessed thoughts with food meant the men avoided physical activity.
Further support for genetic aspect of WSP
Greater similarity of weight in MZ’s (who share 100% of genes) than DZ’s (who share 50%) suggests weight is at least partly under genetic control.
Likewise similarity between weight of children to biological (as opposed to adoptive) parents.
Boundary model
Herman and Polivy Boundary model:
explanation for why dieting causes weight gain
-Physiological determined boundries for hunger and satiety
-unpleasant quality of hunger keeps food intake above a minimum level
-unpleasant quality of satiety keeps it below a maximum level
therefore Eating is determined by biofeedback
between boundries there is a zone of biological indifference- eating regulated by social and environmental influences.
Herman and Mack study
Herman and Mack gave dieters and non dieters either a high (milkshake) or low (cracker) calorie pre load. They measured how much ppts ate in taste test. Non dieters ate less after high calorie pre load, they behaved according to physiology only (ate less after high pre load as were full). Dieters ate more after high than low calorie pre load. Because once they’ve exceeded cognitive boundary the ‘what the hell effect’ sets in and they keep eating up to satiety boundary .
45ppts women
Evaluation of Herman and Mack study
Real world dieting may involve more complicated processs than those studied in lab. Deception (ethical issue) but methodological strength as it overcomes demand characteristics.
Oversimplification- may not apply to men
Research published in peer review journal- good support
Free will/determinism= overeat no choice but to eat more
Beta bias - overlooking gender differences
Independent groups- less likely for demand characteristics
Explanation for success of dieting
Ogden’s psychological model
Attention to detail
Ogden’s psychological model
Proposes that key psychological factors like:
- seeing obesity in terms of their own behaviour rather than genetic and hormonal explanations
- Psychological motives for losing weight as important
- Psychological techniques such as establishing a new identity as a thinner person
Ogden’s study
Questionnaire to explore the factors associated with three groups: stable obese (58), weight loss re gainers (40) and weight loss maintainers (44).
Results: WLM lighter before dieting, were older and spent longer dieting than members of other groups. No difference between groups in terms of contact with health care professionals but WLM were less likely to endorse medical explanations for obesity. Gave greater endorsement to psychological consequences of obesity (depression, anxiety, low self-esteem) were more likely to report they had been motivated to lose weight for psychological reasons like confidence rather than pressure or medical reasons.
Explanation for success of dieting: Attention to detail
Successful dieters are able to pay attention to the details of a healthy diet, people get bored of repetition so should focus on meals details to maintain.
