Food Psychology, Why We Eat More Than We Think

1

• 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

2
Obesity Trends
3
Percent of Adult Females that are Obese by Country
(WHO, 2003)
4
Percent of Adult Males that are Obese by Country
5
Gary Foster Pen State ADA
6
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. Havent found the right diet
• We loose track of how much we are eating

7
I Portion size

• 1. Restaurants

8
Historical glance
9
Then and NowBagel

• 20 years ago
• 3 in diameter
• 140 calories
• Today
• 350 calories

10
Then and NowBurger

• 20 years ago
• 333 calories
• Today
• 590 calories

11
Then and nowFries

• 20 years ago
• 2.4 oz
• 210 calories
• Today
• 6.9 oz
• 610 calories

12
Then and NowSpaghetti

• 20 years ago
• 1 C. pasta-sauce w/ 3 meatballs
• 500 calories
• Today
• 2 C. pasta-sauce w/3 meatballs
• 1,025 calories

13
Introduction of Larger Portion Sizes 1970-1999
14
Portion Size (oz.) 1977-1998
15
Value Marketing

• More for less money
• Increases company profits
• We spend a little extra for larger portions
• We feel weve gotten a deal
• Bundling
• Value Meal
• Combo Meal

16
Value Meals

• McDonalds Quarter Pounder
• Regular vs. value meal1.41, 660 kcal, 4 g sat.
  fat
  
• Wendys Double w/cheese
• Regular vs. Combo meal1.57, 600 kcal, 7 g sat.
  fat
  
• Burger King Whopper
• Regular vs. value meal1.69, 590 kcal

17
Calorie Comparison-7-Eleven
18
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

19
Changes in Calorie Consumption 1971-2000

• CDC study
• Womens intake of calories rose
• from 1,542 kcal to 1,877 kcal
• 22 increase
• Mens intake of calories rose
• from 2,450 kcal to 2,618 kcal
• 7 increase

20
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)

21
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

22
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)

23
Sandwich Study

• Results
• portion size significantly influenced intake
  (P
  
• Conclusions/Applications
• increasing portion size increases intake
• dietitians should provide strategies

24
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

25
Super size me

• Portion size me

26
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?

27
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 Consum
ption

28
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

29
We Eat Much More from Big Containers
Grams Eaten

• People eat 45-50 more from extra-large popcorn
  containers than large ones
  
• They still eat 40-45 more with stale popcorn

30
Do Serving Container Shapes Bias Consumption?

• Piagets 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

31
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

32
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
12
10
Amount
8
Poured
6
Estimate
4
2
0
Tall
Short
Slender
Wide
Glass
Glass
33
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
34
When in Philadelphia, Should I Ask for a Tumbler
or a Highball Glass?

• Bartenders poured 28 more alcohol into tumblers
  than highball glasses
  
• Experience doesnt eliminate bias
• So, as a responsible bartender . . .
• Etch pouring marks on glasses
• Use highball glasses

2.5

2
5 years
1.5
oz
1
0.5
0
Tall
Short
Highball
Tumbler
Glass
Glass
35
III. The effect of visibility and convenience on
dietary consumption

• Gas stations, remember when someone else pumped
  the gasFast food, remember when you had to go
  in

36
RESEARCH QUESTIONS

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

37
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)

38
METHODS

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

39
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.
40
ACTUAL AND ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF CANDY CONSUMPTION
12
10
8
actual
Number of
6
estimated
candies
4
consumed
difference
2
0
on desk
in desk
2 meters from
-2
desk
Painter, J., Wansink, B., Hieggelki, J. (2002).
How Visibility and Convenience Influence
Candy Consumption. Appetite 38, 237-238.

41
(No Transcript)
42
Would this be seen with other types of foods???
43
Painter, J,E., North, J. 2003. Effects of
Visibility and Convenience on Snack Food
Consumption. Journal of the American Dietetic As
sociation, 103(9), A-81.
44
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
45
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
46
Sensory Suggestive Words
Now with Soy

• 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 its healthy
• (but they still hate it)
• Differences across segments

47

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

48
(No Transcript)
49
What Are Descriptive Menu Labels?

• Found on menus . . .
• Jack Daniels Chicken
• Blooming Onion
• Psychedelic Sorbet
• Listen to food stories by servers . . .
• Rich vivid descriptions

50
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

51
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
• Grandmas Zucchini cookies

52
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)
  

53
Well, I know what I like -- Maybe Not

• People evaluate descriptive foods as more
  favorable
  
• Better taste, better texture, but as having more
  calories
  

54
Results Effects are Less Strong with Desserts

• Taste
• No Label Label

Desserts
Main Side Dishes
55
V Visual cues

• 1. Chicken bones and beer bottles
• 2. Soup

56
Soup Study

• Fifty-four participants (72 male)
• They were randomly assigned to dining groups of
  four and scheduled an eating time (between 1100,
  1200, or 100).
  
• 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.

57
Refillable Soup Bowls Increase Consumption,
but Not Perception of Consumption
300
250
200
Actual Calories
Consumed
ounces
150
Estimated Calories
100
Consumed
50
0
Normal
Bowls
Soup
Refillable
Soup
Bowls
58

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

59
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

60
Efficacy of self monitoring
61
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

62
Efficacy of self monitoring
63
Tools and calculators

• Nutrition Analysis Tool
• http//www.nat.uiuc.edu
• Activity calculator http//www.aces.uiuc.edu/food
  -lab/energy/ec.html
  

64
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

65
NAT Hits for March, 1997-2003
66
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)

67
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)

68
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)

69
Monitoring via cell phone
70
(No Transcript)
71
(No Transcript)
72
(No Transcript)
73
(No Transcript)
74
(No Transcript)
75
(No Transcript)
76
(No Transcript)
77
(No Transcript)
78
(No Transcript)
79
(No Transcript)
80
(No Transcript)
81
(No Transcript)
82
(No Transcript)
83
Using food guides to monitor food
intakeInternational Graphical Food Guides
84
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

85
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.

86
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.

87

• Thank You . . .