1. Food Psychology: Why We Eat More Than We Think We Do James E. Painter PhD, RD Chair of the School of Family and Consumer Sciences Eastern Illinois University

3. Obesity Trends Obesity Trends Obesity Trends* Among U.S. Adults BRFSS, 1990 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs. overweight for 5’ 4” person)

4. Percent of Adult Females that are Obese by Country 3.4% Philippines 5% Switzerland 5.6% Thailand 6.7% Singapore 8% Malaysia 8% Tunisia 8.3% Cuba 9.9% Italy 10% Norway 10.3 Brazil 11% Netherlands 12% Sweden 13% Belgium 13.7% Canada 14% Spain 15% Mauritius 15% Iceland 15% Denmark (WHO, 2003) 16% Ireland 16% Slovakia 16.4% Peru 17% Austria 17% Latvia 17% France 17% Lithuania 18% New Zealand 18% Uruguay 18.5% Australia 19% Yugoslavia 19% Finland 20% Germany 20.9% Israel 21% Portugal 21% Hungary 21% Colombia 23% Romania 23% Scotland 23% Chile 23.5% England 25% Russia 25.1% Mexico 25.4% Argentina 26% Oman 26% Czech Republic 28% Greece 29.4% S. Africa 30% Iran 31.5% Jamaica 34% Bahrain 34% US 35.7% Paraguay 36% Curacao 36% Malta 36.5 Panama 40% Lebanon 40% Trinidid and Tobago 41% Kuwait 43.4% French Polynesia 66.3% Samoa American 74.3% Samoa -urban

5. Gary Foster Penn 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. Haven’t found the right diet Premise for today!   We lose track of how much we are eating (example)

7. I Portion size 1. Restaurants

8. Historical glance Young & Nestle, 2003. JADA Expanding Portion Sizes in the us Marketplace. (231-234)

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

10. Then and Now…Burger  20 years ago  333 calories  Today  590 calories  Monster Burger  1420 calories  Web video Web video Web video  video video

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

12. From the monster to the Riley burger

13. From Riley to more madness

14. 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

15. Value Marketing  More for less money “Combo Meal” “Combo Meal” “Value Meal” “Value Meal”  Increases company profits We spend a little extra for larger portions We spend a little extra for larger portions We feel we’ve gotten a deal We feel we’ve gotten a deal  Is it of value to get more of something you didn’t need in the first place

16. Value Meals  McDonald’s Quarter Pounder Regular vs. value meal= 660 kcal Regular vs. value meal= 660 kcal  Wendy’s Double w/cheese Regular vs. Combo meal= 600 kcal Regular vs. Combo meal= 600 kcal  Burger King Whopper Regular vs. value meal= 590 kcal Regular vs. value meal= 590 kcal 1 daily value meal = 1#/wk = 52#/yr = 3,570#

17. Calorie Comparison-7-Eleven 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 GulpBig GulpSuper BigDouble

18. Other Trends  Nestle Toll House cookies recipe yields 60 vs. 100 when written in 1949 recipe yields 60 vs. 100 when written in 1949

19.  Portion size me Portion size me Portion size me  Web video Web video Web video Super size me

20. CBS show on portion size me CBS Morning Show December 2006 CBS Morning Show December 2006 video

21. II. Beware of the Size and Shape of Containers  General Finding About Package Size...  Study 1. Package Size  Study 2. Portion Size  Study 3. Serving Shapes  Study 4. Shape Study #2

22. Package Size Increases Consumption  People who pour from larger containers eat more than those pouring from small Consistent across 47 of 48 categories Consistent across 47 of 48 categories General Finding: Package Size Can Double Consumption

23. Hungry for Some Stale Movie Popcorn? Hungry for Some Stale Movie Popcorn?  General Question Does portion size effect Does portion size effect consumption? consumption?

24. We Eat Much More from Big Containers  People eat 45-50% more from extra-large popcorn containers Grams Eaten 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Large Bucket Extra- Large Bucket Fresh 10 Days Old

25. Do Serving Container Shapes Bias Consumption?  Piaget’s Conservation of Volume Kids think tall vessels hold more than wide vessels Kids think tall vessels hold more than wide vessels

26. 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 Each was randomly given one glass when arriving Tall narrow juice glass or a Short wide juice glass Tall narrow juice glass or a Short wide juice glass

27. Yes... Container Sizes and Shapes Bias Usage Volume Ounces of Juice 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Tall Slender Glass Short Wide Glass Amount Poured Estimate

28. Do Peripheral Cues Influence Experts with Precise Target Volumes? Do Peripheral Cues Influence Experts with Precise Target Volumes? 48 Philadelphia bartenders Given 4 tall, slender (highball) glasses or 4 short, wide (tumbler) glasses Given 4 tall, slender (highball) glasses or 4 short, wide (tumbler) glasses Pour gin for gin & tonic Pour rum for rum & Coke Pour vodka for vodka tonic Pour whiskey for whiskey/rocks Highball Glass Tumbler

29. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Tall Highball Glass Short Tumbler Glass oz “When in Philadelphia, Should I Ask for a Tumbler or a Highball Glass?” < 5 years 5+ years

30. 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

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

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

33. 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. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 on deskin desk2 meters from desk Number of candies consumed on desk in desk 2 meters from desk

34. 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 deskin desk2 meters from desk Number of candies consumed actual estimated

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

36. METHODS Study design:  Length of study: 3 weeks  2 days in each condition  4 foods, grapes, chocolate, carrots & pretzels, were placed in one of 2 conditions Two conditions:  On top of the desk (visible & accessible  In a desk drawer (not visible & inaccessible)

37. 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% Grapes Chocolate carrots pretzels Increase in Dietary Intake when food is Visible (on desk) Compared to Invisible (in desk) % increase Painter, j., Snyder, J., Rhodes, K., Deisher, C. 2008. The Effect of Visibility and Accessibility of Food on Dietary Intake. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 108, 9. p A93.

38. IV Visual cues 1. Chicken bones and beer bottles 2. Ice cream 3. Soup 4. Pistachios

39. Do We Put More into Big Containers  Subjects were give bowls (17oz or 34oz) and serving spoons of different sizes  They serves themselves as much as they desired Ounces Eaten 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 smallLarge

40. Effect of Bowl and spoon size CBS Morning Show December 2006 CBS Morning Show December 2006 video

41. V Visual cues 1. Chicken bones and beer bottles 2. Ice cream 3. Soup 4. Pistachios

42. Soup Study  Fifty-four participants (72% male)  ½ were give a normal bowl  ½ were give a refillable bowl  Details were not provided about the study  But bowls used in the study were different colors  Subjects were guessing the purpose of the study.

43. Refillable Soup Bowls Increase Consumption, but Not Perception of Consumption 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Normal Soup Bowls Refillable Soup Bowls Calories Actual Calories Consumed Estimated Calories Consumed Wansink, B., Painter, JE., North, J. 2005. Bottomless Bowls: Why Visual Cues of Portion Size May Influence Intake. Obesity Research, 13,1, 93-100.

44. 3. How Pistachios Shells Function as Visual Cues that Effect Consumption  Study 1  Will consumption of nuts in the shell reduce self selected portions compared to shelled?  Methods Population 129 college students Population 129 college students Subjects self selected a portion of nuts Subjects self selected a portion of nuts Two conditions Two conditions  Shelled nuts offered  Nuts in the shell offered

45. Self Selected Portions of Pistachios; Comparing Shelled Nuts to Nuts in the Shell by Weight Self Selected Portions of Pistachios; Comparing Shelled Nuts to Nuts in the Shell by Weight (no significant differences P ≥.01) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 ShelledWith shell Ounces Initial weight selected weight consumed

46. Self Selected Portions of Pistachios; Comparing Shelled to Nuts in the Shell by Calorie (Differences were significant p ≤.01) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 ShelledWith Shell calories Calories initially selected Calories consumed Calorie consumption decreased by 50% when nuts were consumed with the shell.

47. Satisfaction with and Satiety of Portions ** P ≥.01 for each attribute, no significant differences ** Scales Fullness 1 very Hungry to 5 very full Satisfaction 1 very satisfied to 5 very unsatisfied 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 ShelledIn shell Full Satisfied

48. Study 2  Will the presence of the empty shells reduce consumption?  Methods Population 17 faculty & staff Population 17 faculty & staff Two conditions Two conditions  Empty shells left on table (visible)  Empty shells were cleared Duration 8 hours Duration 8 hours

49. Calorie Consumption Comparing Empty Shells visible to Shells Cleared Differences were significant p ≤.01 An increase of 56% when shells were cleared 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Shells visible Shells cleared Calories consumed

50. Satiety of Portions ** No significant differences, P ≥.01 ** Fullness Scale (1) very Hungry – (5) very full Even though consumption increased by 56%, there was no significant difference in satiety 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Shells visible Shells cleared Full

51. V Solution   Self monitoring Know what you are eating Track what you are eating

52. Efficacy Self monitoring  38 subjects  Sample was split into four quartiles (based on participants’ self-monitoring consistency  During holiday (3 weeks) and non-holiday weeks (7 weeks). Baker and Kirschenbaum 1998, Health Psych

53. Efficacy of self monitoring

54. Efficacy Self monitoring  57 subjects  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

55. Efficacy of self monitoring

56. Conclusion  Self monitoring helps control 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.

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