Regulatory focus and health eating behavior: olive oil case study Safa Garbout, PhD student 03/02/2017

Factors influencing eating behavior Food choice Characteristics of the individual • Age • Sex • Level of study •Returned • Nutritional knowledge • Competence and culinary creativity • Attitudes about the role of food on health Charactersitics of food taste • Appearance •Texture • Prices •Type of product • Method of preparation • Shape • Seasonality • Food combinations Charachtristics of Environment Season • Employment status •Geographical location • Hearth size • Familiar life cycle Taste, texture, price, types of food, shape Characteristics of Food Season, familiar size Employment status, communication Characteristics of enviroment Characteristics of the individual Age , sex, nutritional knowledge, attitudes ,

Regulatory focus Promotion Prevention Nurturance needs Self regulation in relation to the ideal self Desired end-states characterized by aspirations and accomplishments Security needs Self-regulation in relation to the ought self Desired end-states characterized by responsibilities and safety The same desired end-state might be reached by different means depending on motivational orientation. For example, if a healthy diet is important, a promotion-focused individual may emphasize matches and aim to consume nutritious food while a prevention-focused individual may emphasize mismatches and aim to avoid sweets and fatty foods. Furthermore, promotion- and prevention-focused individuals may be motivated to engage in the same behavior but for different reasons. For example, promotion-focused individuals may be motivated to consume fruits and vegetables because of the benefits associated with these foods while prevention-focused individuals may be motivated to consume fruits and vegetables because of the costs associated with not consuming these foods Promotion-oriented individuals are particularly attuned to the presence and absence of positive outcomes and tend to adopt approach strategies to ensure outcomes that match their desired end-states. Preventionoriented individuals are particularly attuned to the presence and absence of negative outcomes and tend to adopt avoidance strategies to steer clear of outcomes that mismatch their desired end-states Thus, a promotion focus emphasizes the presence of positive outcomes and minimizing “errors of omission” (e.g., missing opportunities for making progress), whereas a prevention focus favors the absence of negative outcomes and minimizing “errors of commission” (e.g., by doing something which turns out to be a mistake; Higgins 1997; Higgins and Spiegel 2004). Presence and absence of positive outcomes tend to adopt approach strategies Presence and absence of negative outcomes tend to adopt avoidance strategies Higgins (1997)

Types of regulatory focus Chronic regulatory focus Drives from a person ‘s developmental history (Trait-wise) ( Higgins and Silberman,1998) Temporary regulatory focus Contextual or situational the other orientations can be chronically (trait-wise) or temporarily (situationally) more accessible to the individual (Avnet and Higgins 2006; Higgins 1997, 1998, 2000)

Composite chronic regulatory focus scale items Type of orientation When it comes to achieving things that are important to me, I find that I don’t perform as well as I would ideally like to do Promotion focus I feel like I have made progress toward being successful in my life When I see an opportunity for something I like, I get excited right away I frequently imagine how I will achieve my hopes and aspirations I see myself as someone who is primarily striving to reach my “ideal self”—to fulfill my hopes, wishes, and aspirations (Haws and al.2010) Alpha ‘s Cronbach = 0,680

Scale chronic regulatory focus items Types I usually obeyed rules and regulations that were established by my parents Prevention focus Not being careful enough has gotten me into trouble at times I worry about making mistakes I frequently think about how I can prevent failures in my life I see myself as someone who is primarily striving to become the self I “ought” to be—fulfill my duties, responsibilities and obligations Alpha ‘s Cronbach = 0,705 Total Alpha ‘s Cronbach = 0,801

Regulatory focus ‘s e- message 350 Millions users of Facebook/month in2009 and One biliion in 2012 89% use social media in 2012 Promotion Prevention Negative consequences of not adopting eating behavior Positive consequences of adopting healthy eating behavior Argument ‘s e- message (Werle et al.2012). Given the importance of the spread of information on social networks and the growth in the number of users of websites (Facebook, twitter, Instagram, Pinterst ...), Like the mass media, new technologies influence the behavior of individuals through social media. Young people are even more receptive to technologies to change their way of life and more specifically their eating habits It is important to choose an effective argument that can educate the consumer The message can thus use a promotion orientation and stress the positive consequences of adopting healthy eating behavior, or it can adopt a prevention orientation and emphasize the negative consequences of not adopting this behavior A social argument can generate emotions among consumers, whereas the health argument can lead to cognitive treatment and a rational approach Health Based on preventive information related to health and the consequences of diseases Social Based on Social risks or the negative social consequences of eating habits Raise awareness of risks and negative consequences of their eating habits on health

Online experimentation Pre-experimental designs Static group comparison: 2 types of groups of test subjects Control group (CG) Experimental group ( EG) Orientation focus* type ‘s argument promotion* health Prevention* health Promotion* social Prevention* social EG is exposed to the independent treatment and the control group is not given the treatment the dependent variable is measured in both groups after the treatment Message on the environment

Group 1: Promotion* health

Group 1: Promotion* health

Group 2: Prevention* health

Group 3: Promotion* Social

Group 4: Prevention* Social

Control Group 5: message on the environment

Verification of manipulations “American sample n=1036” Messages Positive consequences of balanced diet risks of obesity consequences of food habit on health consequences of food habit on social relationship friendship ,job… Condition 1 M= 5,46 M=3,16 M=4,49 M=3,62 Condition 2 M=4,37 M=3,87 M=4,78 M= 3,44 Condition 3 M=4,62 M=3,93 M= 4,30 M=4,56 Condition 4 M=3,76 M=4,66 M= 4,50 M= 4,81 Condition 5 M=3,72 M=3,38 M= 3,77 M=3,66 Maheswaran and Meyers-Levy (1990 ; 2004) Alpha ‘s Cronbach = 0,692

Verification of manipulations “French sample n= 1051” Messages Positive consequences of balanced diet risks of obesity consequences of food habit on health consequences of food habit on social relationship friendship ,job… Condition 1 M= 5,90 M=3,28 M=5,33 M=4,50 Condition 2 M=4,53 M=4,61 M=5,15 M= 4,02 Condition 3 M=4,79 M=4,37 M= 4,86 M=5,02 Condition 4 M=4,40 M=5,42 M= 5,18 M= 5,58 Condition 5 M=4,44 M=4,09 M= 4,46 M=4,35 Maheswaran and Meyers-Levy (1990 ; 2004) Alpha de Cronbach = 0,692

Verification of manipulations “Danish sample n= 1200” Messages Positive consequences of balanced diet risks of obesity consequences of food habit on health consequences of food habit on social relationship friendship ,job… Condition 1 M= 4,35 M=2,30 M=3,28 M=2,84 Condition 2 M=3,66 M=3,72 M= 4,02 Condition 3 M=3,43 M=3,32 M= 3,27 M=3,52 Condition 4 M=2,73 M=4,35 M= 3,79 M= 4,15 Condition 5 M=2,59 M=2,25 M= 2,50 M=2,50 Maheswaran and Meyers-Levy (1990 ; 2004) Alpha de Cronbach = 0,692

Group 1=Intention to eat healthy ( American sample) 65,7% 75,8% Alpha ‘s Cronbach = 0,916

Group 2=Intention to eat healthy ( American sample) 74,5% 82,4% Alpha ‘s Cronbach = 0,916

Group 3=Intention to eat healthy ( American sample) 72,5% 80,7% Alpha ‘s Cronbach = 0,916

Group 4=Intention to eat healthy ( American sample) 74,8% 83,8% Alpha ‘s Cronbach = 0,916

Group 5=Intention to eat healthy ( American sample) 66,% 79% Alpha ‘s Cronbach = 0,916

Healthy choice “ dressing on salads Balsamic vinaigrette sauce Olive oil+ vinegar balsamic + salt+ pepper Mayonnaise sauce Mayonnaise + mustard +oil+ salt+ pepper Ketchup sauce Ketchup + mustard+ mayonnaise + vinegar+ salt + pepper Yogurt sauce Yogurt 0% + lemon juice+ Persil+ oil+ salt + pepper

Healthy choice ( English sample) 80,8 % 77,1 % 83,8% 79,2% 79,2% Group 5 Group 1 Group 4 Group 3 Group 2

Healthy choice (cross cultural) Country Proportion Danish consumer 68,76% American consumer 79,84% Frensh consumer 82,61%

Thank you for your attention