Eat to Be Fit or Fit to Eat

Eat to Be Fit or Fit to Eat? Restrained Eaters’ Food Consumption in Response to Fitness Cues Jörg Königstorfer Hans Baumgartner

Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues Healthy food decision making § maintaining or lowering their body weight is an important goal for 72% of U. S. consumers (Serdula et al. 1999); § focus of prior research has been on the effects of nutrition-related cues on consumption volumes (e. g. , Bublitz et al. 2010; Chandon and Wansink 2010) and the overconsumption of tempting but unhealthy food products (e. g. , Raghunathan et al. 2006), esp. by dieters; § we’re interested in how fitness cues (which deal with physical activity and energy expenditure rather than dieting and energy intake) influence consumption behavior;

Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues Healthy food decision making (cont’d) § fitness cues are common in food marketing; § we investigate the effect of fitness cues on restrained eaters’ food consumption and demonstrate that the direction of the effect depends on the perception of the food category; § we also examine the process through which the effect occurs;

Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues Dietary restraint § the cognitive control of eating; § restrained eaters are consumers who constantly worry about their weight and are chronically engaged in dieting efforts in order to achieve or maintain a desirable body weight; § they are more sensitive to external cues of eating than internal, biophysiological feelings of hunger and satiety; § their eating behavior is often guided by self-imposed dieting rules designed to restrict food intake; § Individual-difference measures: Restraint Scale – concern with dieting and weight fluctuation (Herman and Polivy 1975); □ Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire (van Strien et al. 1986); □

Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues Dietary restraint and food consumption § promoting cognitive control over eating can be an effective strategy for weight management (Johnson et al. 2012); § however, loss of self-control is common, esp. following dietary lapses and during negative affective states; § Heatherton et al. (1988, p. 20) suggest that research should “focus on the more complex question of precisely when, why and how disinhibition occurs in dieters”; § three research questions: Do cues related to fitness and physical activity influence food consumption, and what’s the direction of the effect? □ When will fitness cues have inhibitory or disinhibitory effects on restrained eaters’ food consumption? □ How do fitness cues affect consumption volumes? □

Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues Dietary restraint and fitness cues § prior research has mostly studied restrained eaters’ response to diet cues, not fitness cues; § two kinds of fitness cues: integral fitness cues (ingredients, product name, packaging); □ incidental fitness cues □ § two recent studies: after reading about physical activity, consumers helped themselves to more snack food (Werle et al. 2011); □ priming consumers with health-related concepts increased consumption of low-fat potato chips (Geyskens et al. 2007); □

Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues Dietary restraint and forbidden vs. permitted foods § two incompatible goals determine restrained eaters’ reactions to foods (Stroebe et al. 2008): short-term: eat tasty food (to enjoy life) long-term: eat nutritious food (to promote health) § to resolve this conflict and manage their eating behavior, restrained eaters rely on simple heuristics about the compatibility of certain food categories with their goals (Knight and Boland 1989): Dietary forbidden foods (e. g. , chocolate) □ Dietary permitted foods (e. g. , celery) □

Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues Forbidden and permitted foods (cont’d) § the heuristics used are often inconsistent with the objectively measured calorie content of foods eating a bag of potato chips is more likely to lead to weight gain than drinking an isocaloric glass of grape juice (even when calorie information is provided; e. g. , Oakes 2005); □ the name of the product (pasta vs. salad) may be used to infer its healthiness (Irmak et al. 2011); □ § the salience of fitness cues in combination with the perception of the food will determine restrained eaters’ consumption behavior;

Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues Avoidance of dietary forbidden food in response to fitness cues § when restrained eaters encounter a temptation, they face a goal conflict, and the perception of the category as dietary forbidden may not be sufficient to shield the weight control goal from the eating enjoyment goal; § however, when the concept of fitness is made salient, the health goal is reinforced and the eating enjoyment goal is inhibited, leading to a negative relationship between dietary restraint and the consumption of dietary forbidden foods; § prediction is consistent with prior evidence that diet cues can reinstate a weight control goal (e. g. , Papies et al. 2008);

Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues Approach of dietary permitted food in response to fitness cues § the perceived compatibility of dietary permitted foods with long-term health goals may liberate restrained eaters from having to control their eating behavior and may license them to succumb to the eating enjoyment goal, leading to a positive relationship between dietary restraint and the consumption of dietary permitted foods; § this is consistent with the effects of incidental priming with health- and fitness-related concepts (e. g. , Geyskens et al. 2007), and with the effects observed by Irmak et al. (2011);

Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues Overall framework Integral Dietary Restrained Eating Food Consumption Volume Fitness Cue Food Category Perception as Dietary Forbidden or Permitted Incidental

Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues Mechanisms underlying the effects of fitness cues on food consumption two potential mechanisms (Geyskens et al. 2007): □ biased product perception n n □ restrained eaters may magnify the perceived (in)appropriateness of food when the concept of fitness is salient; restrained eaters under- or over-estimate the number of calories contained in a food when the concept of fitness is salient (similar to the counteractive construal strategy proposed by Zhang et al. 2010); biased self-perception: references to fitness lead restrained eaters to see themselves as closer to their desired fitness and body weight goals;

Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues Prestudy § How would you classify the food? (1=dietary forbidden and 7=dietary permitted) § If this food were eaten regularly, it would lead to … (1=weight gain, 7=weight loss) Potato chips Fat-free yogurt and granola Trail mix 1. 94 5. 54 5. 32

Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues S T U D I E S 1 A and 1 B Incidental Fitness Cues and the Consumption of Dietary Forbidden and Dietary Permitted Food

Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues Study 1 A: Dietary forbidden food § Two “unrelated” studies (language test, watch a movie at which a snack was available) § Supraliminal prime manipulation Scrambled sentence task (with vs. without fitness words) [sporty, fit, active, etc. ] § Measures - Potato chips consumption (pre vs. post) - Dietary Restraint Scale (revised, α =. 78; Herman & Polivy 1980) - Controls: gender, BMI, hours since last meal, perceived tastiness

Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues Study 1 A Consumption of potato chips (kcal) Moderated Regression Analysis Results 250 200 Neutral prime Low DRS s. s. Fitness prime High DRS 150 100 n. s. H 1 a n. s. s. 50 0 – 1 SD 0 +1 SD Dietary restrained eating (mean-centered) R 2 =. 15, tastiness, hunger, and BMI n. s. , (male) gender * n = 132

Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues Study 1 B: Dietary permitted food § Two “unrelated” studies (language test, assess consumers’ opinions about a new cobranded yogurt and granola mix) § Supraliminal prime Scrambled sentence task (with vs. without fitness words) § Measures - yogurt and granola consumption (pre vs. post) - Dietary Restraint Scale (revised, α =. 82; Herman & Polivy 1980) - Controls: gender, BMI, hours since last meal, perceived tastiness

Study 1 B Consumption of yogurt and granola (kcal) Moderated Regression Analysis Results 250 s. 200 150 Neutral prime Low DRS Fitness prime High DRS s. n. s. 100 H 1 b R 2 =. 22, hunger and BMI n. s. , tastiness and (male) gender * 50 0 – 1 SD 0 +1 SD Dietary restrained eating (mean-centered) n = 166

Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues Summary of Studies 1 A and 1 B § Incidental fitness cues lead dietary restrained eaters to � consume less dietary-forbidden food = inhibition (goal adherence) � consume more dietary-permitted food = disinhibition (goal violation) Unknown: § Do integral fitness cues (on the packaging) also lead to disinhibition for dietary permitted foods? § How can disinhibition be explained – via biased product perception or biased self-perception?

Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues STUDY 2 Integral Fitness Cues and Consumption of Dietary Permitted Food

Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues Study 2 § One-factor design assess consumers’ opinions about a new trail mix (with vs. without integral fitness cues); § Measures - Trail mix consumption (pre vs. post) - Dietary Restraint (DEBQ, α =. 91; van Strien et al. 1986) - Controls: gender, BMI, hours since last meal, perceived tastiness

Study 2 Moderated Regression Analysis Results Consumption of trail mix (kcal) 400 350 s. Trail Mix Low DRS 300 Fitness Trail Mix High DRS 250 s. 200 150 n. s. H 2 n. s. R 2 =. 19, gender, hunger, and BMI n. s. , tastiness * 100 50 0 – 1 SD 0 +1 SD Dietary restrained eating (mean-centered) n = 162

Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues STUDY 3 Mechanisms underlying the Effect of Integral Fitness Cues on Consumption for Dietary Permitted Foods

Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues Study 3 § One-factor design assess consumers’ opinions about a new trail mix (with vs. without integral fitness cues); Ps were asked to imagine eating the product and to evaluate the anticipated consumption experience; § Measures - Product-related perceptions: • Perception of the food as dietarypermitted or -forbidden • Calorie estimation (1 serving) - Person-related perceptions: • Closeness to desired fitness and weight - Dietary restraint and controls measured as before

Study 3 Moderated Regression – Product Perception Dietarypermitted 7 Product perception 6 n. s. s. 5 Trail Mix Low DRS Fitness Trail Mix High DRS n. s. s. 4 H 3 3 Gender and BMI n. s. 2 Dietaryforbidden 1 – 1 SD 0 +1 SD Dietary restrained eating (mean-centered) n = 104

Study 3 Moderated Regression – Self-Perception Perceived fulfillment of fitness goals Desired fitness 100 fully reached Far away from desired fitness Trail Mix Low DRS 75 n. s. Fitness Trail Mix High DRS s. 50 s. H 3 Gender and BMI n. s. 25 0 – 1 SD 0 +1 SD Dietary restrained eating (mean-centered) n = 104

Study 3 Moderated Regression – Self-Perception Perceived fulfillment of body weight goals Desired weight 100 fully reached Far away from desired weight 75 n. s. Trail Mix Low DRS Fitness Trail Mix High DRS s. 50 H 3 s. 25 0 – 1 SD 0 +1 SD Dietary restrained eating (mean-centered) Gender and BMI n. s. n = 104

Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues Summary of Studies Contribution Incidental and integral fitness cues (relating to energy expenditure) increase energy intake of dietary-permitted food in restrained eaters by 24– 43% (at +1 SD) Fitness cues make foods appear more dietary permitted; biases in self-perception can also explain this effect; Public policy perspective When cues (here: fitness) license the eating enjoyment goal, dietary-permitted foods are most likely to cause disinhibition Fitness food from ‘safe’ yet calorie-dense categories may be more harmful than typical dietary-forbidden food (e. g. , chips)

Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues Integral fitness cues

Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues Incidental fitness cues

Restrained eaters’ food consumption in response to fitness cues Agreement with the statement that eating 3 slices of bacon [110 kcal] vs. 1 banana [110 kcal] would promote … (Oakes 2005): M = 1. 87 No weight gain M = 4. 32 Extreme weight gain