restraint and disinhibiton

Question 1

Reading for Virtual turorial

Answer 1

(Ouwens, van Strien, & van der Staak, 2003)=Restraint Theory and Overeating:

Restraint theory posits that dieting and self-imposed restrictions on eating can lead to overeating (especially under specific conditions, such as stress or preload consumption).
The phenomenon where restrained eaters overeat following a “preload” (a controlled portion of food) is known as the disinhibition effect.
Restraint Scales Used in Research:

Two common measures of restraint are the Restraint Scale (RS) and scales from questionnaires like the Three Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ) or Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (DEBQ).
The study notes conflicting findings:
The disinhibition effect is reliably observed with the RS but not with other scales like the TFEQ or DEBQ.
This suggests that different restraint scales measure different constructs, with the RS more closely linked to failed dieting and a higher susceptibility to overeating.
Critiques of Restraint Measures:

The RS captures more than just restraint—it reflects preoccupation with dieting, failed weight regulation, and emotional eating.
The DEBQ and TFEQ are better at separating restraint from external and emotional eating, leading to different experimental outcomes.
Tendency Toward Overeating:

The study highlights the importance of distinguishing between successful dieters (who maintain restraint) and unsuccessful dieters (who show disinhibition and a higher tendency to overeat).
Overeating appears to be more strongly related to the tendency toward overeating (measured as a personality trait) rather than dietary restraint itself.
Experimental Evidence:

Studies show no disinhibition effect in experiments when using the TFEQ or DEBQ but consistently observe it with the RS.
This suggests that the disinhibition effect might not universally apply to all restrained eaters but is limited to those with a strong tendency toward overeating.

Question 2

reading for VT findings

Answer 2

(Ouwens, van Strien, & van der Staak, 2003)
Tendency Toward Overeating vs. Restraint:

The tendency toward overeating is a better explanation for overeating behaviors than dietary restraint.
Disinhibition seems relevant only for individuals with a high tendency to overeat, not all restrained eaters.
Restraint Scale Differences:

Results confirm previous findings that the RS (Restraint Scale) consistently shows disinhibition effects, but scales like the TFEQ or DEBQ do not.
This suggests these scales measure different aspects of eating behavior.
Implications for Restraint Theory:

The disinhibition effect does not apply universally to all dieters or restrained eaters.
Overeating may reflect individual susceptibility (e.g., tendency to overeat) rather than dieting failure.

Question 3

the restraint theory:

Answer 3

Herman and Polivy (1980), suggests that attempts to restrict food intake (dieting) can paradoxically lead to overeating. It argues that restrained eaters are more vulnerable to disinhibition, where specific triggers (like emotional distress, preloads, or alcohol) lead them to lose control over their eating behavior.

Question 4

Herman and Mack 1975 study

Answer 4

Herman and Mack (1975) investigated how dietary restraint affects eating behavior and susceptibility to overeating. The study used a preload-test paradigm where participants (restrained and unrestrained eaters) were given a “preload” (a fixed amount of food) and then presented with an opportunity to eat more in a subsequent taste test.

Key Findings:
Restrained Eaters:

Restrained eaters (those actively trying to restrict their eating) ate more in the taste test after a preload.
This was explained by the concept of disinhibition—once their self-imposed dietary rules were broken by the preload, they overate because the boundary of control was “released.”
Unrestrained Eaters:

Unrestrained eaters (not on a diet or restricting intake) did not show the same pattern. They ate less after the preload, following normal physiological cues of satiety.
Conclusion:

The study demonstrated the paradox of dieting: dieting behavior can make individuals more likely to overeat under certain circumstances, such as after a preload. This supports the idea that dietary restraint can disrupt natural regulatory mechanisms of hunger and fullness

Question 5

the boundary model:

Answer 5

(Herman & Polivy, 1984):
The Boundary Model builds on these findings to explain the mechanisms behind dietary restraint and disinhibited eating.

Key Components:
Two Boundaries:

The model proposes two “boundaries” regulating eating:
Hunger Boundary: The physiological lower limit of energy needs, signaling hunger.
Satiety Boundary: The physiological upper limit, signaling fullness.
Restrained Eaters:

For restrained eaters, there is an additional cognitive boundary, which represents their self-imposed limit on how much they “should” eat (e.g., calorie counting or dieting rules).
When restrained eaters break this cognitive boundary (e.g., by consuming a preload), they may overeat to the point of passing their natural satiety boundary.
Unrestrained Eaters:

Unrestrained eaters rely primarily on physiological hunger and satiety cues to regulate eating. Their eating is less influenced by cognitive control, so they are less likely to overeat after a preload.
Mechanism of Disinhibition:
Restrained eaters often experience disinhibition when their cognitive boundary is violated. This triggers a “what the hell” effect, where they abandon restraint and continue eating until they reach the satiety boundary (or beyond)

Question 6

factors affecting disinhibition if restrictive eaters

Answer 6

1. Perceived caloric content & food category; (Knight &
   Boland, 1989; Mills & Palandra, 2008)
   ▫ ‘Forbidden foods’
2. Food cues (e.g., Federoff, Polivy & Herman, 2003)
   ▫ Sight, smell – inhibition of dieting goals.
3. Negative affect (e.g., Polivy & Herman, 1999)
   ▫ Dysphoria, sadness; task failure

Question 7

Temptation

Answer 7

Soetens, Braet, van Vlierberghe & Roets (2008)

The study tests existing evidence on the paradoxical effects of exposure to a forbidden snack. Sixty-eight females were assigned randomly to one of two conditions: a temptation group, who were given the instruction to abstain from a favourite snack for 24 h while being exposed to it, or a control group, who were given no specific instructions. A further distinction was made between high-restraint/high-disinhibition (n = 21), high-restraint/low-disinhibition (n = 20) and low-restraint participants (n = 27) based on DEBQ subscale scores. After exposure to the foods, all participants were given free access to the food. Participants ate more of the snack after abstinence with exposure. The high-restraint/high-disinhibition group in particular displayed a substantial disinhibition effect. Results indicate that prohibition with exposure may backfire and increase the risk of loss of control over eating behaviour, particularly in at-risk groups of disinhibited restrained eaters.

Question 8

disinhibition and weight

Answer 8

Bryant, King, Blundell 2008- Disinhibition is predictive of poorer success at weight loss, and of weight regain after weight loss regimes and is associated with lower self-esteem, low physical activity and poor psychological health

• Linked to a higher BMI (overweight/obesity)
• Predictive of poor success when dieting
  ▫ E.g. weight gain after dieting regimes
• Associated with:
  ▫ Less healthy food choices
  ▫ Low self-esteem
  ▫ Low physical activity
  ▫ Bingeing

Question 9

issues with measuring restraint

Answer 9

1. Conceptual Ambiguity
   Restraint is a multifaceted concept, but scales often fail to distinguish between different types of restraint:
   Rigid restraint: Strict, all-or-nothing dieting.
   Flexible restraint: Moderation and adaptability in eating habits.These differences can lead to inconsistent findings, as not all restraint is inherently problematic.
2. Validity Concerns
   Some scales may not accurately measure restraint behaviors but instead capture other constructs, such as:
   Preoccupation with food.
   Emotional eating.
   Failed dieting attempts.
   This can undermine the validity of conclusions drawn from the research.
3. Causality Issues
   Studies using restraint scales often struggle to disentangle whether restraint causes disordered eating behaviors (like binge eating) or whether individuals prone to such behaviors are more likely to score high on restraint scales.
4. Overreliance on Self-Report
   Restraint scales typically rely on self-reported data, which can be biased by: Social desirability (participants may underreport overeating or overreport restraint). Recall inaccuracies regarding eating habits.
5. Cultural and Contextual Variations.
   Restraint scales may not account for cultural differences in dieting practices or perceptions of self-control in eating. The scales may be less valid in populations where dieting behaviors differ from those in the populations for which the scales were developed.
6. Dynamic Nature of Restraint
   Eating restraint is not static; it can fluctuate over time or in response to environmental cues, but many scales assume a fixed level of restraint.
7. Issues with Online Links or Resources
   Links to restraint scales or their scoring guides may be outdated, incomplete, or behind paywalls, limiting access for replication or validation studies.
   Inconsistent citation of the original sources or scales can lead to confusion about which version of a scale is being used.