![]() ![]() However, as proposed by Fujita ( 2011), viewing effortful impulse inhibition as the defining criteria for self-control neglects people’s capacity to monitor and process environmental information in a cognitively efficient way. Thus, self-control failures occur due to the inability to inhibit such impulses, e.g., due to depleted cognitive resources, reduced motivation to exert self-control/attention to gratification (Inzlicht & Schmeichel, 2012 Inzlicht, Schmeichel, & Macrae, 2014) or particularly strong temptations (Kotabe & Hofmann, 2015 Stroebe, Mensink, Aarts, Schut, & Kruglanski, 2008). This approach states that in order to avert self-control failures, tempting impulses need to be consciously recognized as undesirable and then need to be inhibited. One prominent theoretical explanation of why restrained eaters may be unsuccessful in exerting self-control in eating-despite their explicit intention to do so-is the need for effortful and conscious inhibition of temptation impulses (for a critical overview see Fujita, 2011). Furthermore, a hallmark finding is that restrained eaters overeat after a perceived breach of their diet (Herman & Polivy, 1984). However, in several studies in naturalistic settings, psychometric measures of restrained eating do not consistently relate to actual calorie intake (e.g., Stice, Cooper, Schoeller, Tappe, & Lowe, 2007 Stice, Fisher, & Lowe, 2004 Stice, Sysko, Roberto, & Allison, 2010). Yet, the literature is mixed as to whether restrained eaters are actually successful in cutting down on intake: Laboratory food intake is often reduced in restrained eaters (Robinson et al., 2017). In search of the mechanisms underlying this varying success in self-control, one eating style has been studied intensely: Restrained eating describes a pattern of restricted food intake and weight watching to reduce or maintain weight (Schaumberg, Anderson, Anderson, Reilly, & Gorrell, 2016). However, the pandemic rates of overweight and obesity (Haftenberger et al., 2016 Schienkiewitz, Mensink, Kuhnert, & Lange, 2017) and the low long-term success of weight-loss diets (Mann et al., 2007) indicate that self-control is prone to failures. ![]() Resisting tempting but energy dense foods is considered to require constant successful self-control (Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007 Hofmann, Friese, & Strack, 2009), defined as a preference for larger, but delayed, rewards (e.g., weight loss) over smaller, but immediate, rewards (e.g., eating chocolate Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989). Interestingly, restrained eaters rated healthy and low-calorie foods as more palatable than individuals with lower restrained eating scores, both in the main experiment and an independent replication study, hinting at an automatic and rather effortless mechanism of self-control (palatability shift) that obviates effortful inhibition of temptation impulses.Ĭonsumers face a daily struggle between maintaining a healthy eating style propagated by nutritionists and medical experts, and giving into immediate food temptations. The latter finding is in contrast with the common assumption of self-control as requiring effortful and conscious inhibition of temptation impulses. Results revealed that individuals higher on restrained eating were less likely to choose more high-calorie foods and showed less self-control conflict when choosing healthier foods. Subsequent ratings of foods on palatability, healthiness, and calorie density were modeled as predictors for both decision outcome (choice) and decision process (measures of self-control conflict) while considering the moderating role of restrained eating. Adopting a novel within-participant modeling approach, we tested 62 females during a mouse-tracking based binary food choice task. Successful self-control during food choice might require inhibition of impulses to avoid indulging in tempting but calorie-dense foods, and this might particularly apply to individuals restraining their food intake. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |