Dr Painter Food Psychology

Slide1: 

Food Psychology, Why We Eat More Than We Think Professor James E. Painter PhD, RD Chair of the School of Family and Consumer Sciences Eastern Illinois University Preventive Health Conference Tulsa, OK November 15, 2006

Slide2: 

Obesity Trends

Slide3: 

Percent of Adult Females that are Obese by Country (WHO, 2003)

Slide4: 

Percent of Adult Males that are Obese by Country

Slide5: 

Gary Foster Pen State ADA

Why are Americans gaining weight: 

Why are Americans gaining weight I. Lack of exercise II. Sedentary lifestyles III. Stress/pressure IV. Advertising V. Genetic VI. Deep emotional needs, DR Phil? VII. Haven’t found the right diet We loose track of how much we are eating

I Portion size: 

I Portion size 1. Restaurants

Historical glance: 

Historical glance

Then and Now…Bagel: 

Then and Now…Bagel 20 years ago 3 in diameter 140 calories Today 350 calories

Then and Now…Burger: 

Then and Now…Burger 20 years ago 333 calories Today 590 calories

Then and now…Fries: 

Then and now…Fries 20 years ago 2.4 oz 210 calories Today 6.9 oz 610 calories

Then and Now…Spaghetti: 

Then and Now…Spaghetti 20 years ago 1 C. pasta-sauce w/ 3 meatballs 500 calories Today 2 C. pasta-sauce w/3 meatballs 1,025 calories

Introduction of Larger Portion Sizes 1970-1999: 

Introduction of Larger Portion Sizes 1970-1999

Portion Size (oz.) 1977-1998: 

Portion Size (oz.) 1977-1998

Value Marketing: 

Value Marketing More for less money Increases company profits We spend a little extra for larger portions We feel we’ve gotten a deal Bundling “Value Meal” “Combo Meal”

Value Meals: 

Value Meals McDonald’s Quarter Pounder Regular vs. value meal=$1.41, 660 kcal, 4 g sat. fat Wendy’s Double w/cheese Regular vs. Combo meal=$1.57, 600 kcal, 7 g sat. fat Burger King Whopper Regular vs. value meal=$1.69, 590 kcal

Calorie Comparison-7-Eleven: 

Calorie Comparison-7-Eleven

Other Trends: 

Other Trends Lean Cuisine “Hearty Portions” weighs 50% more than original Joy of Cooking brownie recipe yields 16 vs. 30 when published Nestle Toll House cookies recipe yields 60 vs. 100 when written in 1949 Car manufacturers install larger cup holders to accommodate

Changes in Calorie Consumption 1971-2000: 

Changes in Calorie Consumption 1971-2000 CDC study Women’s intake of calories rose from 1,542 kcal to 1,877 kcal 22% increase Men’s intake of calories rose from 2,450 kcal to 2,618 kcal 7% increase

Normal-weight and overweight men and women: 

Normal-weight and overweight men and women Objectives examine effect of portion size on intake for single meal Subjects 51 men and women Design served lunch 1 day/week for 4 weeks macaroni & cheese(500, 625, 750, 1000 g)

Normal-weight and overweight men and women: 

Normal-weight and overweight men and women Results subjects consumed 30% more when offered largest portion Conclusions/Discussion larger portion led to greater intake regardless of serving method and subject characteristic

Sandwich Study: 

Sandwich Study Objective effect on energy intake of increasing portion size of a food served as a discrete unit Subjects 75 young adults (37 Female ,38 Male) Design subjects ate lunch 1/wk for 4 weeks served four sizes of sandwich (6, 8, 10, 12 in)

Sandwich Study: 

Sandwich Study Results portion size significantly influenced intake (P<.0001) Conclusions/Applications increasing portion size increases intake dietitians should provide strategies

The French Paradox: 

The French Paradox Objective Compare portion size of foods in restaurants, supermarkets, cookbooks, buffet guides Design Comparison of Paris and Philadelphia Conducted Jan-March 2001

Super size me: 

Super size me Portion size me

II. Beware of the Size and Shape of Containers: 

II. Beware of the Size and Shape of Containers General Finding About Package Size . . . Study 1. Hungry for Stale Movie Popcorn? Study 2. Do Shapes Bias Consumption? Study 3. The Philadelphia Bartender Study Study 4. How about a Different Form of Fat?

Package Size Increases Consumption: 

Package Size Increases Consumption People who pour from larger containers eat more than those pouring from small Consistent across 47 of 48 categories Obviously, up to a point There are no concerns of “running out” Criticism -->This only applies to hedonic or tasty foods. For instance, the effects would be less for disliked foods. General Finding: Package Size Can Double Consumption

Hungry for Some Stale Movie Popcorn?: 

Hungry for Some Stale Movie Popcorn? General Question Does food quality moderate? Any interesting gender effects? The Field Study (Chicago, IL) Movie was Mel Gibson in “Payback” Free popcorn (“Illinois History Week”) 2x2 Design Large vs. X-Large Popcorn (pre-weighed) Fresh vs. 10-day-old Popcorn After the movie, ask questions & weighed popcorn

We Eat Much More from Big Containers: 

We Eat Much More from Big Containers People eat 45-50% more from extra-large popcorn containers than large ones They still eat 40-45% more with stale popcorn Grams Eaten

Do Serving Container Shapes Bias Consumption?: 

Do Serving Container Shapes Bias Consumption? Piaget’s Conservation of Volume Kids think tall vessels hold more than wide vessels They fixate on 1 dominate dimension (height) This should influence the consumption If tall glasses are thought to hold more . . . They should over-pour in to short wide glasses But they should believe they under-poured

Do Serving Container Shapes Bias Consumption?: 

Do Serving Container Shapes Bias Consumption? 133 adolescents at a “Nutrition & Fitness Camp” in NH Cafeteria at breakfast time Each was randomly given one glass when arriving Tall narrow juice glass or a Short wide juice glass After exiting the line . . . Asked some usage & perception questions Usage volume was weighed

Yes . . . Container Sizes and Shapes Bias Usage Volume: 

Yes . . . Container Sizes and Shapes Bias Usage Volume These vigilant “weight watchers” poured 88% more into short wide glasses, but believed they poured less Also true with adults (Jazz camp musicians in Westfield, MA) Hmmm . . . does this still happen with experts and a specific target volume (say 1.5 oz)? Ounces of Juice 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Tall Slender Glass Short Wide Glass Amount Poured Estimate

Do Peripheral Cues Influence Experts with Precise Target Volumes?: 

Do Peripheral Cues Influence Experts with Precise Target Volumes? 48 Philadelphia bartenders Paid $4 to be involved in a study on “consumers” Given 4 tall, slender (highball) glasses or 4 short, wide (tumbler) glasses Given 4 full 1500 ml bottles and asked to pour … Split in to . . . Less than 5 years experience More than 5 years experience Pour gin for gin & tonic Pour rum for rum & Coke Pour vodka for vodka tonic Pour whiskey for whiskey/rocks Highball Glass Tumbler

“When in Philadelphia, Should I Ask for a Tumbler or a Highball Glass?”: 

“When in Philadelphia, Should I Ask for a Tumbler or a Highball Glass?” Bartenders poured 28% more alcohol into tumblers than highball glasses Experience doesn’t eliminate bias So, as a responsible bartender . . . Etch pouring marks on glasses Use highball glasses 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Tall Highball Glass Short Tumbler Glass oz < 5 years 5+ years

III. The effect of visibility and convenience on dietary consumption: 

III. The effect of visibility and convenience on dietary consumption Gas stations, remember when someone else pumped the gas Fast food, remember when you had to go in

RESEARCH QUESTIONS: 

RESEARCH QUESTIONS (1) Do people eat more when food is in sight? (2) Do people eat more when food is within reach?

METHODS: 

METHODS Intervention: Closed candy container containing 30 Hershey kisses replenished daily Three conditions: on top of the desk (visible & convenient) in a desk drawer (not visible & convenient) away from desk (inconvenient)

METHODS: 

METHODS Study design: 1 week in each condition Length of study: 3 weeks Questionnaires: Estimate of candy consumption in each condition

AMOUNT OF CANDY CONSUMPTION ACCORDING TO CONDITION: 

AMOUNT OF CANDY CONSUMPTION ACCORDING TO CONDITION Painter, J., Wansink, B., Hieggelki, J. (2002). How Visibility and Convenience Influence Candy Consumption. Appetite 38, 237-238.

ACTUAL AND ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF CANDY CONSUMPTION: 

ACTUAL AND ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF CANDY CONSUMPTION Painter, J., Wansink, B., Hieggelki, J. (2002). How Visibility and Convenience Influence Candy Consumption. Appetite 38, 237-238. -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 on desk in desk 2 meters from desk Number of candies consumed actual estimated difference

Would this be seen with other types of foods???: 

Would this be seen with other types of foods???

Slide43: 

Painter, J,E., North, J. 2003. Effects of Visibility and Convenience on Snack Food Consumption. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 103(9), A-81.

IV. Can Labels Change the Taste of Foods? : 

IV. Can Labels Change the Taste of Foods? Study 1. The Curse of “Soy Inside” Study 2.. Descriptive Labels in the Cafeteria Now with Soy

The Curse of “Soy Inside”: 

The Curse of “Soy Inside” Can Labels make us taste what we believe we will taste? To the untrained palate, taste can be subjective Labels might provide the Power-of-Suggestion Phantom Ingredient Test Two Identical PowerBars One says “contains 10 grams of soy protein” One says “contains 10 grams of protein” Taste This New Product 70 adults taste and rate “soy” label 70 adults taste and rate “----” label Now with Soy

Sensory Suggestive Words: 

Sensory Suggestive Words Phantom Ingredient Test Exact same PowerBar No soy in them “Bad News” People “taste” the non-existent soy and rate it low “Good News” They think it’s healthy (but they still hate it) Differences across segments Now with Soy

Slide47: 

If soy can make “non-soy foods” taste bad. What if soy is actually in the food. Should we tell people it is there.

What Are Descriptive Menu Labels?: 

What Are Descriptive Menu Labels? Found on menus . . . “Jack Daniels Chicken Blooming Onion Psychedelic Sorbet Listen to “food stories” by servers . . . Rich & vivid descriptions

Expectations: 

Expectations If descriptive labels with favorable associations are used, they will . . . Positively influence taste Positively influence calorie Positively influence perceived value Positive influence repatronage intentions

Menu Items Used: 

Menu Items Used Red beans & rice Seafood filet Grilled chicken Chicken Parmesan Chocolate Pudding Zucchini cookies Traditional Cajun Red beans & rice Succulent Italian Seafood filet Tender Grilled chicken Homestyle Chicken Parmesan Satin Chocolate Pudding Grandma’s Zucchini cookies

Dependent Variables: 

Dependent Variables Purchase Incidence Relative difference in purchase incidence Completed questionnaire at end of meal Perception -- Was appealing (1 to 9) & Tasted good (1 to 9) Calorie estimation Repurchase intentions (Eat again within 2 weeks (1 to 9)

“Well, I know what I like”  --> Maybe Not: 

“Well, I know what I like” --> Maybe Not People evaluate descriptive foods as more favorable Better taste, better texture, but as having more calories

Results: Effects are Less Strong with Desserts: 

Results: Effects are Less Strong with Desserts Taste No Label Label Desserts Main & Side Dishes

V Visual cues: 

V Visual cues 1. Chicken bones and beer bottles 2. Soup

Soup Study: 

Soup Study Fifty-four participants (72% male) They were randomly assigned to dining groups of four and scheduled an eating time (between 11:00, 12:00, or 1:00). Details were not provided about the study, but because the bowls used in the study were different colors (either green or blue balanced across both conditions), subjects were guessing the purpose of the study.

Slide57: 

Refillable Soup Bowls Increase Consumption, but Not Perception of Consumption 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Normal Soup Bowls Refillable Soup Bowls ounces Actual Calories Consumed Estimated Calories Consumed

Slide58: 

Solution Self monitoring Know what you are eating Track what you are eating

Efficacy Self monitoring: 

Efficacy Self monitoring 38 subjects Mean weekly weight change was assessed Sample was split into four quartiles (based on participants’ self-monitoring consistency During holiday (3 weeks) and non-holiday weeks (7 weeks). Only those in the most consistent self-monitoring quartile averaged any weight loss over the 10 weeks of the study. Baker and Kirschenbaum 1998, Health Psych

Efficacy of self monitoring: 

Efficacy of self monitoring

Efficacy Self monitoring: 

Efficacy Self monitoring 57 subjects Assessed mean cumulative weight change Over the holiday season Intervention (adding self-monitoring) 2 weeks pre holiday During a 2-week holiday period And 2 weeks post holiday. Boutelle et al. 1999, Health Psych

Efficacy of self monitoring: 

Efficacy of self monitoring

Tools and calculators: 

Tools and calculators Nutrition Analysis Tool http://www.nat.uiuc.edu Activity calculator http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/~food-lab/energy/ec.html

NAT History & Usage: 

NAT History & Usage Developed in 1996 Intended for classroom use Picked up by NBC Miami 1998 Version 2 online August 1999 Presently over 1,000,000 hits per month From over half of the countries of the world

Slide65: 

NAT Hits for March, 1997-2003

World Usage: 

World Usage 13962: 1.12%: .ca (Canada) 6445: 0.52%: .au (Australia) 2924: 0.32%: .mil (USA Military) 2679: 0.22%: .uk (United Kingdom) 1797: 0.13%: .gov (USA Government) 1357: 0.12%: .ae (United Arab Emirates) 1210: 0.07%: .arpa (Old style Arpanet) 1080: 0.08%: .sg (Singapore) 972: 0.12%: .hk (Hong Kong)

World Usage: 

World Usage 802: 0.10%: .de (Germany) 595: 0.05%: .se (Sweden) 595: 0.05%: .be (Belgium) 586: 0.07%: .fr (France) 573: 0.03%: .mx (Mexico) 426: 0.10%: .nz (New Zealand) 418: 0.03%: .es (Spain) 416: 0.03%: .za (South Africa) 353: 0.03%: .jp (Japan)

World Usage: 

World Usage 61: : .fj (Fiji) 36: : .mk (Macedonia) 9: : .tt (Trinidad and Tobago) 26: : .ee (Estonia) 11: : .lb (Lebanon) 6: : .ua (Ukraine) 9: : .si (Slovenia) 4: : .to (Tonga) 2: : .jm (Jamaica)

Monitoring via cell phone: 

Monitoring via cell phone

Using food guides to monitor food intakeInternational Graphical Food Guides: 

Using food guides to monitor food intake International Graphical Food Guides

Review of topics for Today : 

Review of topics for Today Why we eat more than we think I. Portion size II. Package size & shape III. Visibility and convenience IV. What we say V. Visual cues

Conclusion: 

Conclusion Self monitoring helps control consumption. Decreasing portion decreases consumption. Smaller package size decreases consumption Out of sight out of mind. Visibility influences consumption. Inconvenience decreases consumption. Food labels influence consumption. Visual cues to satiation influence consumption Food guides guide consumption.

Implications: 

Implications Monitor food intake Educate on portion size Educate on serving size Encourage clients to order smaller items avoid “super-sizing”, etc. Education-control of portion at home. Make healthy foods convenient. Use food guides.

Slide87: 

Thank You . . .