I don't think therefore I eat...badly. Can subtle diet cues affect subsequent snacking?
-
Upload
farhat-mahmood -
Category
Documents
-
view
20 -
download
0
Transcript of I don't think therefore I eat...badly. Can subtle diet cues affect subsequent snacking?
Acknowledgments
I DON’T THINK THEREFORE I
EAT…..BADLY. CAN SUBTLE DIET CUES
AFFECT SUBSEQUENT SNACKING?
A PSYC5760M MSc PATH Research Project supervised by
Professor Marion Hetherington A dissertation submitted in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Psychological
Approaches to Health and in agreement with the University of
Leeds’ Declaration of Academic Integrity
Farhat Kausar
Mahmood 2012
1
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my lovely supervisor Prof Marion Hetherington for kindly agreeing
to supervise me for the duration of my thesis and for their patience and support whilst
we worked through the finer points of the experiment. As well as this I would like to
thank everyone in the HARU and those PhD students who have offered kind words,
encouragement, help, resources and time in order to improve the experiment especially
Graham for his advice on the snack task.
A special thank you goes to Louise Gill for being there during some wobbly moments
and all the lecturers at the University for making the course so interesting.
I would like to thank my family and friends for putting up with my absence from
birthdays, special occasions and baby- sitting duties.
Finally I would like to thank my husband for supporting me financially and encouraging
me to follow my dreams, for all the dinners he has cooked and all the times he has had
to deal with my tantrums.
2
CONTENTS Abstract
…………………………………………………………………………………… 2
Introduction
…………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Method
…………………………………………………………………………………… 7
Participants
…………………………………………………………………………………… 7
Restraint
…………………………………………………………………………………… 8
Procedure
…………………………………………………………………………………… 9
Cover Story
…………………………………………………………………………………… 10
Goal Accessibility Task
……………………………………………………………………………………
10
TFEQ & PFS
…………………………………………………………………………………… 11
Control Condition
…………………………………………………………………………………… 12
Experimental Condition
…………………………………………………………………………………… 13
Foods
…………………………………………………………………………………… 15
Design
…………………………………………………………………………………… 16
Results
…………………………………………………………………………………… 16
Results
…………………………………………………………………………………… 17
Discussion
…………………………………………………………………………………… 25
References
…………………………………………………………………………………… 29
Appendix
…………………………………………………………………………………… 32
3
Abstract
The study conducted was designed to test goal conflict theory by Stroebe et al (2008)
According to this theory restrained eaters are trying to manage two conflicting goals
namely, eating pleasure and weight control. However due to the higher rates of eating
pleasure cues in the environment the weight control cue is inhibited. The aims of the
study were to evaluate if subtle diet cues can inhibit snacking in restrained eaters.
Restraint was tested using the Three Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ). The subtle
diet cue inserted into the experiment was simply the word diet on the packaging of a
beverage in order to test if it was enough to activate dieting goals and inhibit
subsequent snacking. The population under study was 22 women aged between 18-55
years. Results found that there were no significant differences between restrained and
unrestrained eaters in their consumption of snacks when exposed to a subtle diet cue.
There was also no difference in intake between conditions for both restrained as well as
unrestrained eaters. There was a trend toward significance however as the study was
not sufficiently powered no significant results were found.
4
Introduction
One of the reasons posited to explain the reason that many people struggle to maintain
a healthy weight is due to an obesogenic or toxic environment that is filled with highly
palatable and energy rich foods, as a consequence of this it can be difficult to maintain a
healthy weight Hill & Peters (1998) Wadden, Brownell, & Foster (2002).
One of the ways in which people are advised to maintain a healthy weight is through
diet and lifestyle. In order to achieve the diet aspect of this many people turn to calorie
counting or restricting calories. Unfortunately however the lack of long term success of
dieting is well documented (Miller, 1999; Polivy & Herman, 2002). With the lack of a
long term solution to their problems of overweight and obesity people are constantly
dieting and often, subsequently gaining weight, Mann et al (2007). The effect of this to
and fro can cause what has been termed restrained eating. The irony is that by
restraining their eating dieters may be falling into a trap of wanting to eat more food.
One of the reasons that have been cited for this is that restricting food can lead to an
increase in the frequency of obsessive eating and thoughts as well as possibly an
increase in appetite Doucet et al, (2000), Hart & Chiovari, (1998). Polivy, Coleman, and
Herman (2005).
Several studies have demonstrated that food cues in the environment trigger stronger
appetite responses in restrained eaters than their unrestrained counterparts. These
responses can vary from greater rates of salivation (Brunstrom, Yates, & Witcomb,
2004; LeGoff & Spigelman, 1987) to stronger urges to eat, Fedoroff, Polivy, & Herman,
(1997, 2003); Harris, Bargh, & Brownell, (2009); Harvey, Kemps, & Tiggemann, (2005).
5
As restraint seems to be a moderating variable in the study of eating behaviour it seems
necessary to ask why this is overridden. Recent theories suggest that eating behaviour
seems to be driven by the eating (hedonic) pleasure and wanting food rather than as a
biological mechanism in order to maintain homeostasis, Finlayson, King, & Blundell,
(2008); Lowe & Butryn, (2007); Mela, (2006).
Goal conflict theory
According to the goal conflict theory by Stroebe (2008) restrained eaters are trying to
manage two conflicting goals namely, eating pleasure and weight control. As these two
goals conflict restrained eaters are fighting a constant battle to maintain the balance
between them. Unfortunately due to the higher rate of food enjoyment cues in their
environment the weight control cue is more often than not, inhibited (Shah &
Kruglanski, (2002), Shah et al., (2002) outside of conscious control or awareness
Bodenhausen & Macrae,1998; Shah et al., 2002). If dieters are however reminded of
their diet goals they can reduce their intake of palatable food as studies by (Anschutz,
Van Strien, & Engels, 2008; Papies & Hamstra, 2010; Ward & Mann, 2000) have shown.
Of the various ways that people can be reminded of their diet goals research suggests
that ‘behavioural stop signals can be effective. These are cues in the environment near
tempting foods that cause a braking mechanism to be activated before they have carried
out an action Houben, 2011; Houben & Jansen, 2011; Veling, Holland, & van
Knippenberg, 2008 ; Coxon, Stinear and Byblow, 2009) and may remind dieters of their
dieting goals.
In a recent study by Veling et al (2011) who used go/no go task and presented
participants with pictures of palatable foods and neutral pictures with the go/no go
cues to test if presenting behavioural stop signals would inhibit eating. They found that
the effect was instant and lasted for at least a day. Unfortunately the long term
6
effects of the cue were not tested and it could be that the behaviour would become
extinguished quite quickly especially in the absence of regular go/no go cues.
Theories of motivation suggest that motivation facilitates the accessibility of goal
related intentions and thus improves the likelihood of carrying out a goal, Forster et al
(2004), Goschke & Kuhl, (1993), Kuhl, (1983, 1987),Kuhl & Kaze´n-Saad, (1988).
According to Gollwitzer (1996) cues that relate to relevant goals can be automatically
and unconsciously found by motivated individuals in their environment which
subsequently reactivate goals and help achieve them. As well as this goal priming can
also have the same effect, Moskowitz, Li, & Kirk (2004).
In 2001 a seminal study carried out by Bargh et al found that by priming participants by
placing subtle words such as master, attain and achieve in their environment they could
manipulate the participants into not just working longer at a puzzle in order to solve it,
continue working despite being interrupted and found more words than a control
group. This effect was also found when priming occurred subliminally (by way of
masking the words on a computer screen). Another study that demonstrates this effect
was that done by Fishbach et al (2003) who primed participants by means of magazines
featuring dieting which led to participants choosing a piece of fruit over a chocolate bar.
An experiment carried out in a more naturalistic setting was that conducted by Papies &
Hamstra (2010) in which they offered free meat based snacks to customers of a local
shop. Participants were primed with a dieting goal (a recipe that would help maintain a
slim figure) displayed in the window and then the number of free snacks consumed by
the participants was recorded. The study found that restrained eaters ate more in the
control condition than in the experimental condition. Unfortunately however no other
measures of hunger, food deprivation or controls testing engagement with the prime
were put in place. The study makes no mention of how the days and times were chosen
to put up the poster that primed participants. There could be a variety of reasons that
7
contributed to the difference in results and not just restraint. One of these factors may
be availability, situation (perceived appropriateness) as well the current internal state
of a person, Mela (2001). This method of priming participants with a diet cue was
explored but in a more controlled environment for the current study with the aim of
examining whether a subtle diet cue will lead to a reduced snacking and whether this
will be the same in restrained as well as unrestrained eaters. The current study used
food packaging as the diet cue. It was expected that there would be a difference between
restrained and unrestrained eaters in consumption of snacks when exposed to a subtle
diet cue. It was also expected that restrained eaters’ food intake would be different
between conditions. The dependent variable was the intake of the snacks.
In a bid to ascertain whether or not the diet cue in the environment had activated any
diet related goals participants may have and if they could access these goals the study
used a Goal Accessibility Task. It was hypothesised that the subtle diet cue in the
environment would activate diet goals that were more easily accessible and as such
participants would be quicker at recognising diet related words and slower to recognise
tempting words in the diet condition. Fischler & Bloom (1979), Mikulincer et al
(2002),Knowles & Gardner (2008).
8
Method
Participants
The population used for the purposes of the study were women aged between 19-55
years with a mean age of 28.7. The mean self- reported height in centimetres and mean
self -reported weight in kilos as well as these measurements taken by the researcher
can be found in table (1) below.
Table 1
Height (cm) Weight (K) BMI
Self- Reported 162.64 65.54 24.75
Actual 163.29 62.05 23.34
The breakdown of the percentage of women who were overweight and within the
normal range in BMI is shown in the figure (1) below. There were no obese or
underweight participants.
Fig (1)
Women only participants were used based on the assumption that they were the most
likely to be dieting and it was hoped that an equal number of participants would be
23.81 %
76.19%
Breakdown of paticipant BMI
Overweight
Normal BMI
9
either dieting to lose weight, were maintaining their weight or were doing neither.
Participants were screened and excluded if they had food allergies, medical conditions
and/or a history of eating disorders. Payment was made to the participants in the form
of £15 worth of Love to Shop vouchers on completion of and participation in all three
conditions of the experiment. Participants were recruited from the University of Leeds
participant database, using posters around campus a copy of which can be found in
appendix (1) and through referrals and recommendations from participants who had or
were taking part in the study.
In total 37 participants responded to the invitation to take part of these, 8 were
excluded due to the screening criteria.7 were invited to take part but never booked an
appointment. 1 participant attended twice but not the third and in total 21 participants
completed the entire experiment. A flow diagram of this process can be found below
Figure (2).
Restraint
To test if there was a difference between restrained and unrestrained eaters the median
restraint score was found and all those with a score below 9 were categorised as
unrestrained and all those above as restrained. 12 participants were categorised as
unrestrained with 9 being restrained.
10
Fig 2
Procedure
All participants were asked to e-mail the researcher with their details with an
expression of interest in the first instance. Upon receipt of interest from the relevant
party everyone was sent an information sheet detailing the cover story, number and
length of sessions a copy of which can be found in the appendix (2) and the
remuneration participants could expect to receive as well as screening questionnaire, a
copy of which can also be found in the appendix (3).
11
Cover story
The cover story employed for the study centred around the multi-sensory perception of
flavour i.e. flavour perception based on packaging and subsequent perception of flavour
on snacks. The experiment took place at the Institute of Psychological Sciences in the
Human Appetite Research Unit (HARU). A copy of the cover story presented to the
participants upon their first visit to the HARU can be found in appendix (4) featuring a
study by Auvray & Spence (2008) entitled The Multi-Sensory Perception of Flavour.
GAT
In order to test if the participants could access their dieting goals if they had any and to
see if they were activated during the course of the experiment a goal accessibility task
was set up on the computer programme called E-prime. Goal accessibility was
measured using a word completion task using words taken from the website
psycholinguistics website http://www.psy.uwa.edu.au/MRCDataBase/uwa_mrc.htm.
The goal accessibility questionnaire was in the form of a word recognition task.
Participants were presented with104 words. Of these there were 08 critical words. 04
of these were diet words namely diet, slim, thin, and weight with 04 hedonistic words
namely Scrumptious, Tasty, Tempting and delicious. There were 48 neutral words
presented such as cope, soil and roof that had been matched for length and frequency
and these were generated using the website http://www.wordcount.org/about.html.
This provided frequencies of words based on the British National Corpus. There were
also 48 non-words such as maln, yawt, and gwoe presented. These were phonotactically
plausible non-words-again that had been matched for frequency- each critical word was
matched 6 times in frequency. Non-words were generated from
http://www.maccs.mq.edu.au/~nwdb/
12
Participants were presented with the words and asked to decide if the words were real
words or non-words on a computer in the cubicle in which they completed the rest of
the experiment. All participants were presented with the same set of instructions and
each word remained on the screen till a decision had been reached before the next word
was presented. All data was recorded and reaction times were recorded in milliseconds
(ms) and input into SPSS to ascertain the reaction time and accuracy of the decisions
made.
TFEQ & PFS
In order to gauge if participants were restrained or unrestrained eaters, the Three
Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ) by Stunkard & Messick (1985) was used. To
measure the differences between individuals eating behaviours and restraint this
measure was taken at the end of the experiment when all tasks had been completed.
This was to minimise any chances of the participants guessing the purpose of the study
and also to ensure the simple act of asking eating related questions would not
contaminate the study in any way by affecting eating /snacking behaviour. The
questionnaire was delivered on the computer using the Qualtrics website. As well as the
TFEQ the Power of Food Scale (PFS), Lowe (2007) also formed part of this
questionnaire as well as the date of participants last period and also what they thought
was the purpose of the study. There was a final question on the height and weight of
participants was measured by the researcher as an independent, objective measure of
these details. This information was taken in the HARU.
13
Control condition
The participants were asked to attend the HARU on three separate occasions. On each
occasion they came in twice with each instance separated by a two hour break. The first
occasion participants were asked to come in was to control for baseline snacking levels.
In the control condition informed consent for the study was obtained. Participants were
informed that they must take part in a taste check session to ensure they like the taste
of the chosen test foods. The control condition consisted as did the two experimental
conditions of an initial visit to the HARU for a set lunch of a cheese sandwich with
yoghurt and pre-weighed water. Participants were then free to leave the HARU to
return two hours from the start of their allotted time for lunch.
In the control condition participants were asked to initially complete the consent form a
copy of which can be found in appendix (5), they were then given a copy of the cover
story to read if they wished but were told the purpose of the study was as per the cover
story that the researchers were attempting to find out if the packaging of a beverage
affected subsequent perception of the flavour of snacks they subsequently consumed
and were given the opportunity to ask any questions. Participants were also given an
outline of the sessions (appendix (6). Participants were then asked to complete a
100mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) a copy of which can be found in the appendix (7).
The first VAS was completed immediately after completing the prior food consumption
questionnaire (appendix 8). Following the completion of these, participants were
provided with a set lunch consisting of a cheese sandwich, yoghurt and pre-weighed
water. The lunch was standardised and all of the components of the sandwich from the
bread to the cheese were the same for all participants. The yoghurt was also a standard
amount namely 155 grams as was the water at 350 grams. The same plates, bowls,
glasses and jugs were used for all the participants. All instructions provided were also
14
standardised and the participants were asked to eat as much as they could of the lunch
that was provided in a bid to control for hunger across the sample. Having eaten lunch
participants were asked to complete the second of the VAS after which they were free to
leave and were asked to return two hours after the start of the lunch session.
Upon their return participants were again asked to complete a VAS and then taste and
rate the four snacks that had been chosen to form part of the study. The snack rating
task was devised by the researchers and was made to look as if it were a genuine test of
sensory analysis and was named as a Food Analysis Sensory Task (FAST), a copy of this
can be found in appendix (9). Participants were asked to taste and rate snacks with no
packaging present. The snacks provided were pre-weighed portions and the
participants also received a set amount of water. Participants were asked to have as
much or little as they liked whilst completing taste ratings of the snack foods. In order
to control for the amount of exposure that participants had to the food they were given
exactly ten minutes in all three conditions to complete the task and be exposed to the
snacks. This control condition was used as a baseline measure to control for between
group/individual differences. Having completed the snack rating task participants were
asked to complete a final VAS after which they were asked to complete an alertness task
which was in fact the Goal Accessibility Task (GAT).
Experimental conditions
In the experimental conditions upon their return from the two hour break participants
were presented with a can of the beverage either diet or regular depending on the
condition they had been assigned to, a glass with 40 grams of regular coke, which
participants were told was the drink that corresponded with the packaging in front of
them and a jug of water to cleanse their palate between different sections of the
packaging task. The participants were instructed to complete a second VAS after which
15
they were required to rate the packaging and taste the beverage in a set of eight
questions. A copy of the packaging task can be found in the appendix (10). The
packaging task was constructed in an effort to ensure that participants engaged with the
diet cue and were as a consequence primed with the diet cue. Upon completion of the
packaging task the participants were asked to complete a further VAS. The participants
were then required to complete the GAT whilst the packaging of the beverage remained
in the room with them.
Having completed the GAT, participants were presented with the Food Analysis Sensory
Task (FAST) and were again provided with the same snacks as in the control condition
and asked to consume as little or as much as they needed in order to complete the task.
The participants were given ten minutes in order to complete the task and were then
given their final (VAS) to complete. On the third and final occasion that participants
attended after the final VAS had been completed participants were asked to complete a
final questionnaire which was in fact the Three Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ)
Stunkard & Messick (1985), diet status (Lowe, 1993), diet goal importance and self-
regulatory success questions Fishbach et al., (2003) and questions designed to ask if any
participant had guessed the true nature of the study. On this final occasion participants
height and weight was measured, they were given £15 worth of Love to Shop vouchers
and were advised they would be debriefed via e-mail.
All the tasks that the participants did were delivered in booklets in order to ensure
everything was conducted in exactly the same order for every participant and to
standardise the process for everyone. A copy of all the booklets can be found in
appendix (11). A diagrammatic explanation of the experiment can be found below in
Figure (3)
16
Fig (3)
Foods
The foods provided to participants for lunch consisted of a cheese sandwich using
Cathedral City light mature cheddar (ready grated) (42g), iceberg lettuce (18g), Lurpak
spread (9g), Hellmans light mayonnaise (8g) and Hovis thick sliced white bread (100g)
and Onken wholegrain strawberry yoghurt (155g). A set 350 grams of water was
provided with lunch. As part of the snack task four different snacks were provided two
of which were sweet and two savoury. These were salt and vinegar flavour Snack a Jacks
rice cakes (30g). Sainsbury’s own brand cheese savouries (60g), Fiddes Payne pink and
white mini marshmallows (50g), Galaxy chocolate counters (135g) and a set 350 grams
of water was also provided with the snacks. The drink provided was regular Coca Cola
(40g).
Prior food
consumption
Lunch
Diet drink
Cue condition
Regular drink
Packaging
Task
GAT
Snack Taste and Rating
TFEQ
PFS
Demographics
17
Design
The study used a mixed within subjects 2x3 design with restraint as a between subjects
factor and condition (control, tempting, diet) as within subjects. The order of the
conditions was counterbalanced and there were at least seven days between each
condition and two hours between lunch and the actual consumption of the snacks and
drink.
Participants were assigned to their respective conditions by use of a virtual die from the
website virtual dice: http://www.bgfl.org/bgfl/custom/resources_ftp/client_ftp/ks1/maths/dice/six.htm)
All odd numbers were assigned to the regular coke condition and even numbers were
assigned to the diet coke condition.
18
Results
Energy Intake between conditions and restraint
A repeated measures ANOVA was carried out to test for the main effect of condition
with 3 X within subjects (control, tempting, diet) 2 between subjects factor (restrained,
unrestrained) Data was analysed to remove any outliers resulting in n=16 the means
and restraint status by condition can be found below in Figure (4).
Fig 4
The total energy intake by condition was not significant F (2, 28) = 3.12 p > .060 =
.182 and there were no main effects of restraint on energy intake by condition F (2, 28)
=1.04 p > .366 = .069. The results for energy intake based on restraint was F (2, 28) =
1.04 p <.366 but with a very low β.21 making the result not significant.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Control Tempting Diet
Ene
rgy
in K
cal
Condition
Total Energy Intake (Kcal) between conditions
Restrained
Unrestrained
19
Snacks by condition
An ANOVA was run to ascertain if there were any significant differences between the
amount of snacks consumed in each condition and if the type of snack differed
significantly across conditions.
Fig (5 )
Individual analyses of the amount of snacks eaten based on the condition show that
there was a significant difference in the weight of marshamllows eaten with a mean
(8.76 SD 6.68) in the control condition a mean (13.78 SD 12.81) in the tempting
condition and a mean 15.5 SD 14.6 in the diet condition, F (2, 40) =6.54 p <.003 =
.247 This difference in consumption was significant between the control and diet
condition with p <.032.
There was no significant difference in the amount of rice cakes eaten between condition
with a mean (8.75 SD 8.15) in the control (8.86 SD 7.23) in the tempting and (8.04 SD
7.52) in the diet condition consumed, F (2, 40) =.243 p> .786 =.012 .
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Control Tempting Diet
Inta
ke in
Gra
ms
Condition
Mean snack intake (grams) by condition
Marshmallows
Rice Cakes
Cheese Savouries
Chocolate Counters
20
The mean amount of cheese savouries eaten in grams in the control, tempting and diet
condition was (11.23 SD 9.21, 14.91 SD 13.37) and (16.68 SD 15.45) respectively with F
(2, 40) =4.11 p <.024 = .171 however as the β is .70 this is not significant.
The means for the consumption of the chocolate counters in the conditions are (27.35
SD 22.57, 36.50 SD 31.91) in the tempting and (37.79 SD 32.26) in the diet condition, F
(2, 40) = 3.65 p < .035 = .154 however with the β .64 this was not significant again.
This information is presented in figure (5) above.
Snacking by Restraint and condition
A repeated measures ANOVA was run to test if there was a main effect of condition on
snack intake and restraint. The mean total snacks consumed in the control, tempting and
diet conditions are shown in Table 2
Table 2
Condition Status Mean (grams) Std Deviation
Control
Unrestrained 309.94 182.86
Restrained 214.81 160.87
Tempting
Unrestrained 407.61 274.16
Restrained 283.61 223.56
Diet
Unrestrained 437.45 278.27
Restrained 287.27 249.65
There was a significant main effect of condition on snack consumption F (2, 38) = 5.469
p <.008 =.224 but no interaction effect based on the restraint status of the
21
participants F (2, 38) =.361 p>.699 .019. Analyses on the main effects of restraint on
eating were again, not significant F (2, 20) = 1.166 p > .334 or of dis-inhibition F (2, 20)
= 2.013 p>.163.
Analysis comparing the snacks eaten based on condition was statistically sigificant F (2,
40)= 6.45 p < .003 = .249 as well as the type of snack by condition F (6, 120)= 2.22 p
< .003 = .249. There was no difference between the control and tempting condition p
>.079 however there was a significant difference between the control and diet condition
p <.024 in the amount of food eaten. The difference in food type eaten was between the
marshmallows and chocolate counters p >.001 and between the rice cakes and
chocolate counters p < .003.
Subjective States individual
There were no significant differences in ratings of hunger between conditions and pre
prime F (2, 40) = .157 p>.855 or of tiredness F (2, 40) = 1.63 p> .208, desire to eat F (2,
40) = .662 p> .521, for happy there was a trend toward significance however with β at
.63 this was not significant with F (2, 40) =3.54 p<. There were no significant differences
between conditions in ratings of fullness with F (2,40) =1.20 p>.311, this was the case
for how relaxed participants were between conditions with F (2,40) 2.61 p> .086 and
finally for stress again no significant differences with F (2, 40) .740 p > .483.
Subjective states + restraint
Further analyses were run to ascertain if there were any significant differences between
conditions and between restrained and unrestrained eaters in ratings of hunger. There
were no significant differences found in hunger ratings by condition with F (2, 38)= .126
p >.882 =.007 or between condition and restraint status F (2, 38)= .071 p > .932
22
=.004. This analysis was also run on ratings of tiredness. There was no significant
difference in rating of tiredness between condition F (2, 38) =1.55 p > .225 = .076 or
between restraint status and condition F (2, 38) =.447 p >.643 = .023 The results for
ratings of the desire to eat were not significant with effects of condition as F (2, 38) =
.493 p >.614 .025 and of restraint as F (2, 38) = .766 p> .472 .039. There was a
trend toward significance in happiness ratings between condition F (2,38)= 4.52 p<.017
=.192 but unfortunately the β .74 means that the effect was not significant. There
were no significant differences in fullness ratings between conditions F (2, 38)= .992 p>
.380 = .050 or between restrint status F (2, 38) = .321 p > .727 = .017.
Ratings of being relaxed were not significant between conditions F (2, 38) 2.81 p >.073
= .129 or due to restraint status F (2,38) =.493 p > .615 = .025. Finally ratings of
stress were non significant between condition F (2, 38) = .613 p > .547 = .031 or
between restraint status F (2, 38) = .470 p > .628 =.024.
GAT
For the Goal Accessibility Task mean reaction times for the diet congruent words were
calculated. From these outliers were excluded using SPSS and the results for 18
participants were used for analysis. Participants who had taken longer than
3055milliseconds (ms) to react to the diet related words in the control condition were
excluded. In the tempting condition a reaction time longer than 2402ms meant that data
was excluded and in the diet condition this time was 3416ms.
Reaction times to hedonistic words that were longer than 2984 ms were excluded from
the control condition, 2738 ms in the tempting condition and 2838 ms in the diet
23
condition. An ANOVA was run to analyse the main effects of condition on reaction times
for the diet words used in the study, results revealed F (2, 34) = 2.03 p <.146 .107
that there were no main effects on reaction times by condition.
This analysis was again for main effects of condition on reaction times for the hedonistic
words in the study F (2, 34) = .900 p > 416 .050. Details of the means for both diet
and hedonistic words can be found in Fig (6)
Fig (6)
GAT by Restraint
Analyses of the mean reaction times for hedonistic words based on restraint status
There was no main effect of condition on reaction time F (2, 32) = 1.064 p > .357 or of
restraint status by condition F= (2, 32) 1.08 p >.352.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Tim
e in
Mill
ise
con
ds
Condition
Mean reaction time for diet and hedonistic words between conditions
Diet Words
Hedonistic Words
24
There were no main effects of condition on reaction times for diet words F (2, 32) = 1.20
p < .152. There was also no interaction between restraint status and condition on
reaction times F (2, 32) =.670 p > .506. The mean reaction times in milliseconds
between conditions for diet and hedonistic words and based on restraint status can be
found below in figure (7).
Fig 7
GAT exclude incorrect answers.
A repeated measures ANOVA was run on the responses to the critical words in the GAT
after removing any incorrect responses. There was no significant difference in accuracy
between conditions with F (2, 42) =.537 p >.588. This was found to be the case when the
accuracy of neutral words was checked between conditions with F (2, 42) =.804 p >.454.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Mean reaction time (ms) for diet and hedonistic words between condition and restraint status
Diet Words
Hedonistic Words
25
There was no significant difference between the non-word accuracy either by condition
with F (2, 42) = .735 p >.486. Finally this analysis was run to test for overall word
accuracy between conditions and this was also not significant F (2, 42) =.760 p >.474.
A repeated measures ANOVA was run to test if there was a main effect of condition on
overall accuracy F (2, 38) = 3.34 p <.046β .060 so was not significant. The was no
significant interaction between restraint and condition either F (2, 38) = .069 p > .933
This analysis was run again to test if there was a main effect of condition on the
accuracy of the critical words which revealed there was no significant effect F (2, 38)
1.13 p > .334 there was no significant interaction between condition and restraint F (2,
38) = .396 p > .675.
26
Discussion
There were no significant results and the null hypothesis needs to be accepted for the
current study. There were no significant differences between restrained and
unrestrained eaters in their consumption of snacks when exposed to a subtle diet cue.
There was also no difference in intake between conditions for both restrained as well as
unrestrained eaters. There was a significant difference between energy intake but this
was not as expected because the differences occurred between the control and diet
condition and in fact intake increased in the diet condition rather than decrease as was
expected. As such participants ate the least in the control condition and most in the diet
cue condition. There were no interactions between restraint status or dis-inhibition on
consumption. There was a difference in food type eaten and this was only significant
between the rice cakes (eaten the least) and chocolate counters (eaten the most)
between the control and diet condition. Other effects may have been found however the
study was not sufficiently powered to produce significant results though there was a
trend toward significance in the amount of cheese savouries and chocolate counters
consumed between conditions.
This problem extended to the Visual Analogue Scales also wherein there was a trend
toward significance in ratings of happiness between conditions.
On the whole where the snacks were concerned the main interaction effects were found
between the control and diet condition with participants consuming the least in the
control condition and the most in the diet condition. However for the Goal Accessibility
Task there was a main effect of condition on reaction and this was between the
tempting and control condition. There were also interaction effects of condition on
restraint status at a significant level and this was again between the control and
tempting condition. This could be attributed to an activation of diet goals in the
27
presence of regular coke rather than diet as participants may have held implicit
attitudes about the un-healthiness of the beverage and it’s incongruity with diet goals
Provencher et al (2009). This could be seen as a limitation of the study which could be
remedied by either using a beverage that is less well known and so less likely to be
loaded with unhealthy perceptions. Another way could have been to gauge implicit
attitudes to the beverage and using this as a separate variable to control for within and
between subject differences.
The current study has attempted to control for all other variables that could confound
the results such as hunger by controlling for this as well as mood. The researchers also
designed the study to ensure that all participants had to engage with the packaging and
thus were primed with the subtle diet cue, namely the word diet on the beverage can.
Participants time with the snacks was also standardised to minimize the chances of any
one participant under or overeating. Despite these controls the current study has not
found significant results, conversely participants ate more in the diet condition. This
could suggest that there are other factors at play in the decision making process
whether it be conscious or subconscious. As the results are contrary to previous
findings it may suggest that diet cues in the environment can be too subtle despite the
findings of Papies & Hamstra (2010), who also used a subtle diet cue in the environment
but did not use as many controls as the current study. An alternative explanation is that
the study was not sufficiently powered.
Unfortunately due to time constraints there were only 21 participants in the sample and
had there been more it is likely more significant results would have been found,
especially as there were several results that were trending toward significance that had
to be disregarded due to a lack of power.
28
It was interesting to note that there was a trend (though not significant) with restrained
eaters consuming less than their unrestrained counterparts, yet for both sets of
participants their results still went up in a linear fashion from least consumption in the
control condition to most in the diet condition. This could be as a consequence of
normative beliefs about healthy options which previous research suggests increase
intake because of perceptions of health Provencher (2009) Herman & Polivy, (2007),
Herman and Polivy (2008). This could explain why participants ate more in the diet
condition believing that as they had drunk a low calorie beverage they could consume
more snacks.
The implications of this research may be limited due to the lack of power, however two
areas of research may have overlapped here limiting or confounding the results. In
previous studies the diet cues have been in the environment Papies and Hamstra (2010)
Bargh et al (2001), Fishbach et al (2003) and have not been a part of the experiment
testing consumption as in the current study. As the diet cue was packaging and
participants had to consume some of the said beverage the effects of the diet cue may
have been inhibited by the normative health beliefs held by participants about the
beverage thus affecting the consumption of the subsequent snacks. This suggests that
diet cues need to be separate from the food being consumed and perhaps should not
form part of the packaging or content of the food being consumed as this may result in
overconsumption.
As the above tentative conclusions suggest the field of research into eating behaviour
and attempting to increase healthy behaviours especially where food choices are
concerned is extremely complex. Future research could look at the whether
attitudes/perceptions of healthy and unhealthy foods override diet goals and which
effect is stronger the attitude to a food or the diet goal. As well as this it may be
interesting to see if subtle diet cues in the environment need to stay in the environment
29
and not interact with participants as in the current study to be effective or if this study
with sufficient power can yield statistically significant results negating the need for
further speculation into the effect found.
30
References
Anschutz, D. J., Van Strien, T., & Engels, R. C. M. E. (2008). Exposure to slim images in
mass media: television commercials as reminders of restriction in restrained eaters. Health
Psychology, 27, 401-408.
Auvray & Spence (2007). The multisensory perception of flavour. Consciousness and
cognition, 17, 1016- 1031
Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., Lee Chai, A., Barndollar, K., & Troetschel, R. (2001). The
automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioural goals. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81,1014–1027.
Bodenhausen, G. V., & Macrae, C. N. (1998). Stereotype activation and inhibition. In R. S.
Wyer (Ed.). Advances in social cognition (Vol. 11,pp. 1–52). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brunstrom, J. M., Yates, H. M., & Witcomb, G. L. (2004). Dietary restraint and heightened
reactivity to food. Physiology and Behaviour, 81, 85–90.
Coxon, J. P., Stinear, C. M., & Byblow, W. D. (2009). Stop and go: the neural basis of
selective movement prevention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(6),1193-1203.
Doucet, E., Imbeault, P., St Pierre, S., Almeras, N., Mauriege, P., Richard, D., et al. (2000).
Appetite after weight loss by energy restriction and a low-fat diet-exercise followup.
International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders, 24, 906–914.
Fedoroff, I. C., Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (1997). The effect of pre exposure to food cues on
the eating behavior of restrained and unrestrained eaters. Appetite, 28, 33–47.
Fedoroff, I. C., Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (2003). The specificity of restrained versus
unrestrained eaters’ responses to food cues: General desire to eat, or craving for the cued
food? Appetite, 41, 7–13.
Finlayson, G., King, N., & Blundell, J. (2008). The role of implicit wanting in relation to
explicit liking and wanting for food: Implications for appetite control. Appetite, 50,120–
127.
Fischler, I. S. & Bloom, P. A. (1979). Automatic and attentional processes in the effects of
sentence contexts on word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
18, 1-20.
Fishbach, A., Friedman, R. S., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2003). Leading us not unto temptation:
Momentary allurements elicit overriding goal activation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84, 296-309.
Forster, J., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). Accessibility from active and fulfilled
goals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,41, 220–239.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1996). The volitional benefits of planning. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A.
Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action (pp. 287–312). New York: Guilford.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans.
American Psychologist, 54, 493–503.
Goschke, T., & Kuhl, J. (1993). Representation of intentions: Persisting activation in
memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19,
1211–1226
Harris, J. L., Bargh, J. A., & Brownell, K. D. (2009). Priming effects of television food
advertising on eating behaviour. Health Psychology, 28,404–413.
Hart, K. E., & Chiovari, P. (1998). Inhibition of eating behaviour: negative cognitive effects
of dieting. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54, 427–430.
Harvey, K., Kemps, E., & Tiggemann, M. (2005). The nature of imagery processes
underlying food cravings. British Journal of Health Psychology,10, 49–56.
Herman, C. P., & Polivy, J. (2007). Norm-violation, norm-adherence, and overeating.
Collegium antropologicum, 31, 55–62.
Herman, C. P., & Polivy, J. (2008). External cues in the control of food intake in humans: the
sensory-normative distinction. Physiology & Behaviour, 94, 722–728.
31
Hill, J. O., & Peters, J. C. (1998). Environmental contributions to the obesity epidemic.
Science, 280, 1371–1374.
Houben, K. (2011). Overcoming the urge to splurge: the role of inhibitory control in eating
behaviour. Journal of Behaviour Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 42,384-388.
Houben, K., & Jansen, A. (2011). Training inhibitory control: a recipe for resistingsweet
temptations. Appetite, 56, 345-349.
Knowles, M. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2008). Benefits of membership: The activation and
amplification of group identities in response to social rejection. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1200-1213.
Kuhl, J. (1987). Action control: The maintenance of motivational states. In F. Halisch & J.
Kuhl (Eds.), Motivation, intention, and volition (pp. 279–291). New York: Springer.
Kuhl, J., & Kaze´n-Saad, M. (1988). A motivational approach to- volition: Activation and
deactivation of memory representations related to unfulfilled intentions. In V. Hamilton,
G. H. Bower, &N. H. Frijda (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on emotion and motivation (pp.
63–85).
LeGoff, D. B., & Spigelman, M. N. (1987). Salivary response to olfactory food stimuli as a
function of dietary restraint and body weight. Appetite,8, 29–35.
Lowe, M. R., & Butryn, M. L. (2007). Hedonic hunger. A new dimension of appetite?
Physiology & Behaviour, 91, 432–439.
Mann, T., Tomiyama, A. J., Westling, E., Lew, A.-M., Samuels, B., & Chatman, J. (2007).
Medicare’s search for effective obesity treatments: Diets are not the answer. American
Psychologist, 62, 220–233.
Moskowitz, G. B., Li, P., & Kirk, E. R. (2004). The implicit volition model: On the
preconscious regulation of temporarily adopted goals. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 317–404). New York: Academic Press.
Mela DJ. Determinants of food choice: relationships with obesity and weight control. Obesity
Research 2001;9:249–55.
Mela, D. J. (2006). Eating for pleasure or just wanting to eat? Reconsidering sensory hedonic
responses as a driver of obesity. Appetite, 47, 10–17.
Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O. & Shaver, P.R. (2002). Activation of the attachment system in
adulthood: Threat-related primes increase the accessibility of mental representations of
attachment figures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 881-895.
Miller, W. C. (1999). How effective are traditional dietary and exercise interventions for
weight loss? Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 31, 1129–1134.
Mizutani, N., Okamoto, M., Yamaguchi, Y., Kusakabe, Y., Dan, I., & Yamanaka, T. (2010).
Package images modulate flavour perception for orange juice. Food Quality and
Preference, 21(7), 867–872.
Papies, E. K., & Hamstra, P. (2010). Goal priming and eating behaviour: Enhancing self-
regulation by environmental cues. Health Psychology, 29,384–388.
Polivy, J., Coleman, J., & Herman, C. P. (2005). The effect of deprivation on food cravings
and eating behaviour in restrained and unrestrained eaters. International Journal of Eating
Disorders, 38, 301–309.
Provencher V, Polivy J, Herman C.P( 2009) Perceived healthiness of food. If it’s healthy, you
can eat more! Appetite, 52:340-4.
Shah, J. Y., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2002). Priming against your will: How accessible
alternatives affect goal pursuit. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 384–396.
Shah, J. Y., Friedman, R., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2002). Forgetting all else: On the
antecedents and consequences of goal shielding. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83, 1261–1280.
Stroebe, W. (2000). Social Psychology and Health (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University
Press.
32
Stunkard A.J, Messick S. (1985) The three-factor eating questionnaire to measure dietary
restraint, disinhibition and hunger. Journal of Psychosomatic Research;29:71-83
Van Koningsbruggen, G. M., Stroebe, W., & Aarts, H. (2011). Through the eyes of dieters:
Biased size perception of food following tempting food primes. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 47, 293–299.
Veling, H. et al. (2011) Using stop signals to inhibit chronic dieters’ responses toward
palatable foods. Behaviour, Research and Therapy. 49, 771–780
Veling, H., Holland, R.W., & van Knippenberg, A. (2008). When approach motivation and
behavioural inhibition collide: behaviour regulation through stimulus devaluation. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1013-1019
Wadden, T. A., Brownell, K. D., & Foster, G. D. (2002). Obesity: Responding to the global
epidemic. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 510–525.
Ward, A., & Mann, T. (2000). Don’t mind if I do: disinhibited eating under cognitive load.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 753-763.
.
33
Appendix (1)
34
Appendix (2)
35
The multi-sensory perception of flavor: Can packaging affect general perceptions of taste?
Female Volunteers wanted This study is designed to test if the packaging of a well-known beverage brand can affect the taste of any snacks consumed subsequently. Can you attend the cognitive labs in the Institute of Psychological Sciences at the University of Leeds? Can you attend on three separate occasions? In the first session you will be provided with a lunch of cheese sandwiches) with yoghurt. You will be asked to return 2 hours later and asked to taste and rate a selection of foods. In the second session, you will again be provided with lunch consisting of the cheese sandwich and yoghurt and return in two hours. You will be asked to complete a questionnaire and will then be asked to taste and rate a drink after which you will be asked to taste and rate a sample of snacks. In the third session the above procedure will be repeated however at the end of the tasting session you will be asked to complete a set of questionnaires.
You will be compensated for your time with £15 of Love to Shop Vouchers.
If interested please contact Farhat on - [email protected]
This study has received ethical approval by the Institute of Psychological Sciences (Ethics # 12-0081).
You can unsubscribe from the mailing list at any time by re-visiting http://www.psyc.leeds.ac.uk/research/studies/index.htm and selecting 'Leave'.
MSc Postgraduate student
Psychological Approaches to Health
Institute of Psychological Sciences University of Leeds
Leeds
LS2 9JT
36
Appendix (3)
37
Screening Questionnaire
Please complete all of the following questions and return to [email protected].
1) Date: (dd/mm/yy)
2) What is your date of birth? (dd/mm/yy)
3) What is your age?
4) What is your native language (e.g. English)?
5) Are you: Male Female
6) What is your height: and your current weight:
7) a) Are you a student? Yes No
b) If yes, what are you currently studying?
8) a) Do you have any food allergies? Yes No
b) If yes please detail:
9) Please check the boxes below for foods that you would be willing to eat in the study.
Are you willing to eat:
Cheese sandwich with white bread Strawberry yoghurt
Snack a Jacks (salted rice cakes) Marshmallows
Digestive biscuits (chocolate coated) Cheese savouries
10) If you are unwilling to eat any of these foods please detail reasons why:
38
11) How would you describe your general health?
Excellent Good Okay Poor
12) Are you diabetic? Yes No
13) a) Do you have any other metabolic problems? Yes No
b) If yes, please specify:
14) a) Have you EVER suffered from an eating disorder? Yes No
b) If yes, please detail:
15) a) Do you have any medical conditions? Yes No
b) If yes, please specify:
16) Please give details of any medication you are currently taking (including oral contraceptives):
17) Do you have any food allergies? Yes No
18) Are you lactose intolerant? Yes No
19) Do you have dyslexia? Yes No
20) a) Do you have any other reading related problems? Yes No
b) If yes, please detail:
21) Are you currently on a diet either to lose or maintain weight? Please tick:
Lose weight Maintain Weight Neither
22) Do you usually eat breakfast? Yes No
39
23) Do you smoke? Yes, regularly Yes, occasionally No, given up No never
24) Do you do regular exercise? Yes No
25) If yes, how many times a week do you exercise? One to four More than four
26) Generally, what sort of exercise do you do?
27) In general, how healthy would you rate your diet?
Not at all healthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 extremely healthy
28) Please provide a contact email address that you can check regularly to allow ease of arranging a
study session:
29) Please also provide a telephone number that we can contact you on:
30) Would you be interested in hearing about further research? If so, we can send you emails when
opportunities arise. You would be under no obligation to take part; this is simply an information
service.
Yes, I would like to receive No, I would not like to receive
emails about further research emails about future research.
Thank you for taking the time to complete this form.
Please return to [email protected]
You will be contacted to be advised of eligibility and to arrange participation shortly.
40
Appendix (4)
41
Changes to packaging affects taste perception: does
this extend to the taste of other foods?
To raise awareness of the need to protect endangered species Coca Cola recently changed their
iconic red cans to white versions featuring white polar bears. However, despite no changes to the
ingredients of the can, consumers complained that the taste of the drink had changed. This is an
example of how information from different senses, such as vision, can influence our taste
perception. The multi-sensory perception of flavour or in other words, how information from
different senses (such as the sight, smell and sound of food) affects taste perception has been well
documented in psychology (Auvray & Spence, 2007). However, the effect of exposure to coloured
packaging on taste perception of subsequent foods has not yet been studied. In this study we are
interested in how exposure to well- known packaging may shape taste perception of subsequent
foods.In this study you will be exposed to a drinks packaging and asked to rate your associations
with the packaging and taste. You will then be asked to taste and rate several different confectionary
foods. References Auvray & Spence (2007). The multisensory perception of flavour. Consciousness
and cognition, 17, 1016- 1031.
Institute of Psychological Sciences
FACULTY OF MEDICINE AND HEALTH
42
Appendix (5)
43
The multi-sensory perception of flavour: can packaging affect general perceptions of taste?
Researchers: Farhat Mahmood, Nicola Buckland and Marion Hetherington The multi-sensory perception of flavour, or in other words, how information from multiple senses such as sight, smell and sound affect taste has been widely documented in psychology (Auvray & Spence, 2007). This study aims to extend our understanding of the multisensory perception of flavour by examining how exposure to familiar packaging may influence taste perception of subsequent foods. For this study you will need to attend the cognitive labs on three separate testing days (testing days must be separated by at least 7 days). In all test sessions you will be provided with a set lunch and then asked to return to the laboratory 2 hours later. The first test session is to check your eligibility for the study, this session involves completing taste rating scales of the study foods. In the next two studies you will be asked to rate packaging and to taste and rate confectionary snack foods. For each session please ensure that you: 1) do not consume any alcohol the day before and the day of testing; 2) do not eat for up to two hours before the start of the experiment; and3) keep physical activity similar across all three test session. The lunch session will last around 20 minutes and the second part of the study (packaging and rating of food) will last around 30 minutes. Upon completion of this study you will receive £15 of love-to-shop vouchers. Please circle:
1. I confirm that I have read and understood the above information. YES / NO 2. I understand that I can withdraw from the study at any point YES / NO 3. I confirm that I have no food allergies YES / NO 4. I confirm I do not have diabetes or any other metabolic conditions YES / NO
Participant Name ___________________________________
Participant NUMBER _________________________________
Signature ___________________________________________
Date _____
Institute of Psychological Sciences
FACULTY OF MEDICINE AND HEALTH
44
45
Appendix (6)
46
Institute of Psychological Sciences FACULTY OF MEDICINE AND HEALTH
Outline of sessions
Below is a guide of what to expect when you come to the HARU to participate in the
study.
Session one
You will be asked to fill in a consent form and details of prior food consumption.
You will be provided with a set lunch of cheese sandwiches, yoghurt and water and complete a set of
Visual Analogue Scales (VAS).
You will leave the HARU for two hours and return to complete a snack tasting session and fill in some
more VAS.
Finally you will complete a cognitive alertness test on the computer
Session two
You will be asked to fill in details of prior food consumption.
You will be provided with a set lunch of cheese sandwiches, yoghurt and water and complete a set of
Visual Analogue Scales (VAS).
You will leave the HARU for two hours and return to complete a packaging task along with filling in
some VAS
You will then be asked to complete a cognitive alertness test on the computer
You will be asked to complete another snack tasting session and fill in some more VAS
Session three
You will be asked to fill in details of prior food consumption.
You will be provided with a set lunch of cheese sandwiches, yoghurt and water and complete a set of
Visual Analogue Scales (VAS).
You will leave the HARU for two hours and return to complete a packaging task along with filling in
some VAS
You will then be asked to complete a cognitive alertness test on the computer.
You will be asked to complete another snack tasting session and fill in some more VAS
You will asked to complete a set of questionnaires on the computer.
You will be given a de-brief and paid.
47
Appendix (7)
48
How HUNGRY do you feel right now?
Not at all Extremely
hungry hungry
How TIRED do you feel right now?
Not at all Extremely
tired tired
How strong is your desire to EAT right now?
Not at all Extremely
strong strong
How HAPPY do you feel right now?
Not at all Extremely
happy happy
How FULL do you feel right now?
Not at all Extremely
full full
How RELAXED do you feel right now?
Not at all Extremely
relaxed relaxed
How STRESSED do you feel right now?
Not at all Extremely
stressed stressed
49
Appendix (8)
50
Prior Food Consumption
1. What meals have you eaten today? (Please circle)
Breakfast Lunch
If you have eaten breakfast, what did you eat (please specify brands of food if relevant)?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
2. What time did you eat breakfast? _________________
3. If you have eaten lunch, what did you eat (please specify brands of food if relevant)?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
4. What time did you eat lunch? _________________
5. What snacks have you eaten before arriving here today (please specify brands of food if
relevant)?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
6. What time did you eat each of these snacks?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
51
Appendix (9)
52
Food Analysis Sensory Task
Below is a Food Analysis Sensory Task (F.A.S.T) (Kausar et al., 2009) which consists of questions relating to the four samples of food on the desk. Please taste each of the food samples in the order they appear on this sheet. Please rinse your mouth with water between each food sample. Please help yourself to as much or as little of the food and water as you need to complete the taste rating task accurately.
You have 10 minutes to complete the Food Analysis Sensory Task (F.A.S.T)
Please read the questions carefully and provide a score ranging from 1-10 with 1 as the lowest score possible and 10 being the highest.
e.g. How sweet is the sample?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (not at all sweet) (extremely sweet)
Please remain in the room till the experimenter returns.
Please help yourself to as much or little of the food as you like whilst you wait for the experimenter.
Cheese Savouries
Rice Cakes
Mini Marshmallows
Chocolate Counters
Visual
Based on how the sample looks how would you rate its palatability (tastiness)?
How would you rate the samples saltiness?
Tactition (Feel)
How appealing does the sample
Feel in your mouth?
How crunchy does the sample feel whilst eating it?
Gustation (Taste)
How appealing does the sample taste?
How important was this sense in your perception
of flavour of the sample?
53
Appendix (10)
54
Packaging Task
On the table in front of you there is a beverage can and a sample of this beverage in
a glass.
For this part of the task we would like you to taste and rate the beverage sample on
the scales provided whilst focusing on the appearance of the can (packaging).
Before answering the questions below, please take a moment to look at the
packaging of the drink. Please think about:
1) The colour used on the can;
2) The shape of the can;
3) The shape of any designs on the can (e.g. lines or graphics).
The task is broken down in to two parts; part 1 is rating the flavour of the sample and
part 2 is rating the texture of the sample. Please follow the instructions on the page.
55
Part 1: Taste – Flavour
Instructions
1. Please rinse your mouth with the water provided.
2. Take half the sample in your mouth and hold the sample in your mouth for 10 seconds.
3. During the 10 seconds please focus your eyes on the packaging and think about the flavour of the sample in your mouth.
4. After the 10 seconds please feel free to swallow the sample and answer the following questions 1. How acidic is the drinks flavour?
Not at all
acidic
Extreme
ly acidic
2. How strong is the intensity of the drink flavour?
Not at all
strong
Extreme
ly
strong
3. How sweet does the drink taste?
Not at all
sweet
Extreme
ly sweet
4. How strongly do you associate the colour of the packaging with the sweetness of the beverage?
Weakly
associat
ed
Strongly
associat
ed
BREAK: Please rinse your mouth with the water provided. Then follow the
instructions on the next page.
56
Part 2 - Texture
Instructions
1. Take the remaining portion of the sample in your mouth and hold the sample in your mouth for 10 seconds.
2. Whilst the sample is in your mouth direct your eyes to the packaging and think about the sensations of the drink on your tongue
3. After the 10 seconds please feel free to swallow the sample and answer the following questions.
1. Thinking about the temperature of the drink, how cold does the drink feel in your mouth?
Not at all
cold
Extreme
ly cold
2. How thick does the drink feel in your mouth?
Not at all
thick
Extreme
ly thick
3. How fizzy does the drink feel in your mouth?
Not at all
fizzy
Extreme
ly fizzy
4. How strongly do you associate the colour of the packaging with the fizz of the beverage?
Weakly
associat
ed
Strongly
associat
ed
When you have completed the packaging task please complete the final rating
scale on the next page.
57
Appendix (11)