EATING BEHAVIOURS Flashcards
what did Denton (1982) find about food preference
an innate preference for salt is found in many varying animal species
Overall Eval of Evolutionary expl of eating beh.
😊 Research Support – Logue,
☹ Difficulty studying neonates
☹ Problems with R.S
☹ Deterministic
☹ Research against – Drewnowski
what did Logue (1991) find about food preferences
human tongue has specific receptors for detecting sweetness.
Not the case for other tastes = non specific receptors.
Also more receptors for detecting sweetness than for any other tastes
Support for food prefernces made by observations of animals
Fondeness for sweetness can be found throughout the animal kingdom.
Animals will go to great trouble to get sweet tasting foods e.g: bear get stung by bees
What did Drewnowski et al (2001) find about taste aversion
some people are very sensitive to some bitter tastes whereas other people aren’t
What did Steiner (1977) find about food preferences
-Newborn babies showed:
-positive facial expressions after sugar placed on tongue
-Negative facial expressions in response to bitter tastes
Eval of Learning in food preferences
😊 Research Support –Meyer and Gast (2008)
😊 Research Support – Brown and Ogden
☹ Problems with both R.S - correlation
😊 Research Support – Macintyre et al (1998)
☹ Alternative Theory - Evolution
Brown and Ogden (2004) Learning eating behaviors
reported consistent correlations between parents and their children in terms of snack and food intake, eating motivation and body dissatisfaction
Problem = correlation + family study = genetics?
Macintyre et al (1998) learning preferences
found that media have a major impact on what people eat and their attitude towards food
Meyer and Gast (2008) learning preferences
surveyed 10-12 yr old boys and girls. Found significant positive correlation between peer influence and disordered eating
Problem = correlation
2(+) of Neural control of eating behaviours
LH
(+)Anna + Brobeck (1951)
Rats and cats
found that lesions to the LH lead to aphagia (undereating)
Suggest eating behaviour is controlled by the hypothalamus
(+) Lashley + Brobeck = studied rats. Lesions to VMH = overeat . Lesions to LH = undereat
3 (-) of Neural control of eating behaviours
(-) Anna + Brobeck lacks cross species validity
(-)Reductionist - more likely a combination of factors
(-) Deterministic. Determined by Neural mechanisms
(-) Alt. expl. Hormones
all eval for genetic expl of AN
think Scandinavia
(+) Holland et al (1988) Studied 45 pairs of female twins. Found a concordance rate of 56% MZ 5% DZ.
(-) Ignores environment. Not 100% MZ so must be other factors
(+) R.s Scott Van zealand- Candidate gene association study
epoxide hydrolase 2.
(-)Biologically reductionist
(-)Alt. expls = SLT. Observe + imitate people in media
(+) R.s Scott Van zealand
Candidate gene association study
sequences 152 genes suspected to be related to AN.
Discovered only one Gene to be significantly associated with AN = epoxide hydrolase 2. code for enzyme involved in cholesterol metabolism
eval hormonal expl of eating behaviours
(+)R.s Wren- Ghrelin inject = eat more
(+) Licinio - ppl can’t produce leptin. given leptin = 49% reduced food intake
(-) Reductionist
(-) Deterministic
(-) Alt expl
3(+) neural expl of AN
(+)One advantage of this theory is that it has research support. For example, Kaye et al (2005) conducted PET scans on 10 women recovering from AN and 12 healthy women in order to compare dopamine activities. They found that over activity in dopamine receptors in the basal ganglia of the women recovering from AN. This suggests that dopamine does play a role in AN, increasing the validity of the neural explanation.
(-) small sample btw
(+), there is further research support. For example, Castro-Fornieles et al (2006) found adolescent girls with AN had higher levels of HOMOVANILLIC ACID (a waste product of dopamine). This suggests that dopamine, thus neurotransmitters do play a role in AN, once again increasing the validity of this theory.
(+), this theory does hold some practical application. For example, if we know that AN is caused by neurotransmitters then we could potentially provide drugs to address these issues and treat the disorder. This means that the theory is useful.
2(-) neural expl of AN
(-)Kaye et al. However, this research could be criticised because of it’s small sample. For example, they only had an estrocentric sample of 22 in total. This is relatively small and does not account for men with AN. This means that we cannot generalise the notion that dopamine plays a role in anorexia to many people. This weakens that support for the theory, and in turn questions how applicable it is.
(-)However, some would criticise this theory for its reductionism. For example, it reduces the complex disorder of AN to a very basic level; being neurotransmitters. It is unlikely that only serotonin and dopamine alone are responsible for the development of this disorder. Neurotransmitters do not even operate in isolation, but in complex interactions. It is more likely that AN is caused by a combination of factors, not just neural, but genetic and psychological factors too, the interaction of which increasing the likelihood of its development. You could therefore question the validity of this explanation on the grounds of simplicity.
or
(-)Furthermore, a final disadvantage of this theory is that it is deterministic. For example, it suggests that AN is determined by neural activity. This ignores the notion of free will and the idea that we have some choice over our behaviour. People may feel that they have some control in the development of such an eating disorder but this theory does not recognise this. Therefore, some may question its feasibility.
3 (+) family systems theory
(+) R.S Brockmeyer. studies 112 female AN patients and health control p.p. Found AN patients showed a significantly greater desire to be autonomous. A similar finding from an earlier study also showed female AN patients were were more controlling with their own behaviour and differentiated less clearly between themselves and family members
(+)P.A Behavioural Family Systems Therapy. this attempts to disentangle family relationships and encourage AN to engage with more people outside of family circle
(+) can explain the complex nature of AN better than many other expls. Explains why the disorder tends to first appear in adolescence and why it disproportionally effects females
2 (-) family systems theory
(-) Cause and effect. Family dysfunction<-> Anorexia. Features of anorexic family may be consequence of having anorexic daughter
(-)Very rigid template for AN so can’t be considered a complete theory. Focus on females. Still many men with AN. Oestrocentric
Overall Evaluation of the role of neural and hormonal mechanisms
(+) Lots of research support
(+) Lots of research on non-human animals
(+) Practical Application
(-) Reductionist
(-) Ignores the role of social and cultural factors – are they more important in the modern day?
Evaluate Cognitive theory of anorexia
(+)R.S Williamson : AN overestimate their body size. expl- AN = body dysmorphia
(-) problem with R.S, e.g: small sample (37)
(+) R.S, Larger sample e.g: Halmi, Found perfectionism as a predictor of AN. (728 wider sample) so is a risk factor. Suggest AN = Irrational beliefs such as perfectionism.
(-) Issues with causation. Faulty thinking <-> AN original?
(+)P.A, CBT
EXTRA
(-) Reductionist
biological neural expl of Obesity
(+) Ohia et al. (2013) Genetically modified mice to have no 2C (serotonin) receptor. Mice developed late-onset obesity
(-) Cross species
(+) Ritchie + Noble (2003) -Found that people with a variant of the DRD2 gene had 40% fewer D2 receptors and were more likely to overeat.
(-) Reductionist
(-) Alt. expls. psychological approach
Disinhibition and Restraint theory
4 Eval points
RESTRAINT
(+) Wardle + Beales Restraint Restrained eaters ate significantly more
(-) bias sample
(-) Savage et al. Restraint -negative correlation between restrained eating and weight
DISINHIBITION
(+) Boyce + Kuijer (2014) Disinhibition images of ‘thinness’
what did Wardle and Beales find about Obesity
procedure
-27 obese women - 7 weeks
-3 groups - diet, exercise, control
-Food intake assessed 4th and 6th week
FOUND
Restrained eaters ate significantly more
(-) ONLY WOMEN
Boyce + Kuijer (2014) findings
Found that exposure to images of ‘thinness’ caused significant increase in eating in restrained eaters compared to control
Supports externa cues
Savage et al Research into obesity
restraint
-Longitudinal study of 163 women
Found
-negative correlation between restrained eating and weight
Overalll evaluation of The boundary model
(+) Ogden
(+)P.A - dieting companies
(-) Indiv. diff. not all obese people are dieting
(-) Alt. theories. Biological research = Ritchie + Noblle
(-) Rigid vs flexible restraint
Ogden (2003) Boundary model R.S
(2003) Tested in a laboratory.
-Gave dieters and non-dieters a taste test.
-P.p given either a high calorie ‘pre load’ snack or a low calorie snack.
-After eating, p.p told they were taking part in a taste preference test.
-p.ps lefts alone to eat
-How much they ate was recorded
Found:
-Non-dieters reduced food intake after high calorie
-Dieters increased food intake after high calorie
-Dieters ate less after low calorie
(-) Alt expl with research:
Ritchie and Noble (2003)
Boundary model
Found people with a variant of DED2 gene had 40% fewer D2 (dopamine) receptors and more likely to overeat
Evaluate whole psychological expl of obesity
Restraint
(+) R.S Wardle + Beales
Disinhibition
(+)R.S Boyce + Kuijer
Boundary
(+)R.S- Ogden
(+)P.A - dieters
(-) Alternative theories: Biological Explanations
Overall eval of Detail theory
(+) R.S Redden. jelly beans
(-)Lacks ecological validity
(+)P.A dieter + companies
(-)Indiv. Diff. Doesn’t work for all
(-)Alt.expl
Redden research (2008) into Detail theory
-Group 1 given general info on a computer e.g: ‘bean no. 7’
-group 2 given specific info on computer e.g: cherry flavour bean no. 8’
Found:
-Group one grew bored more quickly
-Group 2 enjoyed the task more
-Suggests detail leads to enjoyment
Wegner research support into role of Denial in dieting
Wegner et al (1987) asked some p.p not to think about a white bear, but to ring a bell if they did.
-Told others TO think of a white bear
FOUND those told NOT to think of the bear rang their bells far more often
Overall evaluation of dieting theory
Denial
(+)R.S Wegner. white bear
(-) Problems with research. Lacks ecological validity -Not about dieting -
(+) R.S, Adriaanse -> Not thinking about chock = Thinking + eating more of it
(-) Gender bias, only women
x
(+) R.S - Soetens (restrained eaters who used thought suppression ate more)
Adriaanse et al (2011) Research support of the role of Denial
Studies women trying to stop snacking behaviour. presented with dieting intentions in a bad form e.g: When I am sad I will not think of chocolate’.
Found such statements had an ‘ironic rebound effect’ and increased the consumption of chocolate. Effect was not only cognitive, but behavioural (reinforced via the statements)
Social learning theory
!!!!!!!!!!!!
😊 RS – Fearn
😊 RS – Becker
😊 RS - Chisuwa and O’Dea
😊 Practical Applciations
☹ Ignores nature
RS – Fearn
studied young women living in Fiji
Western TV introduced in 1995
Found by 1998, 74% of Fijian women reported as being too big or too fat
whereas eating disorders were previously unknow to the island
R.S - Becker (2011)
natural experiment on island of Fiji
found most significant predictor of eating disorders was ‘social network media exposure’
which was the ammount of friends and schoolmates who had access to TV, video and DVD rather than Hours actually spent watching TV
R.S Chisuwa and O’Dea
Highlight increased rates of AN in Japan over past 40 years as the previous traditional values of favouring ‘plumpness’ as a sign of good health is being displaced by western ideal of ‘thinness’
eval Genetic expl of Obesity
(+)R.S Stunkard - Adoption
(-) Correlation
(+)Ritchie + noble - no DrD2 gene 40% fewer D2 receptor
(-) twin studies bad
(-) Reductionism
(-) Determinism
R.S - Stunkard
Adoptions study
540 adoptees
strong correlation between weight and bio parent weight
No correlation between Adoptive parent weight
