1. Food Psychology 101: Why We Eat More Than We Think
James E. Painter PhD, RD
Chair of the School of Family and Consumer Sciences
Eastern Illinois University

2. Obesity Trends

3. 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
11.8% Canada
12% Sweden
13% Norway
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

4. Percent of Adult Males that are Obese by Country
1.7% Thailand
1.7% Philippines
2% Tunisia
2.7% Cuba
5% Malaysia
5% Mauritius
5.3% Singapore
6% Switzerland
7.2% Jamaica
7.2% Peru
9% Latvia
9.1% S. Africa
9.5% Italy
10% Russia
10% Oman
10% Spain
10% Sweden
10% Iran
11% Lithuania
11% Netherlands
12% Austria
12% France
14% Portugal
14% Belgium
14.7% Israel
14.9% Mexico
15% Yugoslavia
15% Denmark
15% New Zealand
15.7% Chile
17% Romania
18% Hungary
18% Slovakia
18% Uruguay
18% Germany
18.5% Australia
19% Curacao
19% Iceland
20% Trinidad and Tobago
20% Ireland
20% Scotland
20% Finland
21% Lebanon
21% England
21% Colombia
22% Malta
22% Czech Republic
22.9% Paraguay
23% Bahrain
26.5% Brazil
27.7% U.S.
28.4% Argentina
29% Greece
32% Kuwait
34.6% French Polynesia
36.5% Panama
56% Samoa –urban*
64% Samoa –American*

5. 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)

6. I Portion size
1. Restaurants

7. Historical glance

8. Then and Now…Bagel 20 years ago 3 in diameter 140 calories Today

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

10. Then and now…Fries 20 years ago 2.4 oz 210 calories Today 6.9 oz

11. 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

12. Introduction of Larger Portion Sizes 1970-199960 50 40 30 20 10

13. Value Marketing More for less money Increases company profits
“Combo Meal”
“Value Meal”
Increases company profits
We spend a little extra for larger portions
We feel we’ve gotten a deal
Is it of value to get more
of something you didn’t need in the first place
Value meals cost less than it would cost to buy each component separately.
Encourages customers to spend a little extra to purchase larger portion sizes yet feel as though they’ve gotten a deal.
Cost of food itself is small so cost of larger portion is small
Bundling-when fast food establishments encourage consumers to combine their entree with high-profit-margin, high calorie soft drinks and side dishes like french fries.
Generally steers customers toward calorically-dense, low-nutrition foods rather than healthier options such as salads and yogurt parfaits.

14. Value Meals McDonald’s Quarter Pounder Wendy’s Double w/cheese
Regular vs. value meal= 660 kcal
Wendy’s Double w/cheese
Regular vs. Combo meal= 600 kcal
Burger King Whopper
Regular vs. value meal= 590 kcal
1 daily value meal = 1#/wk = 52#/yr = 3,570#
McD-Quarter pounder w/ cheese and a Quarter Pounder w/cheese medium extra value meal (med fries and coke)
Wendy’s classic double w/cheese-making it an old fashioned value meal adds
BK-it costs 87 cents more to “king size” the medium whopper value meal (adds 440 calories)

15. Calorie Comparison-7-Eleven
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
Gulp
Big Gulp
Super Big
Double

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

17. Changes in Calorie Consumption 1971-2000
CDC study
Women’s intake of calories rose
from 1,542 kcal to 1,877 kcal
Men’s intake of calories rose
from 2,450 kcal to 2,618 kcal
Study published February 5th by CDC

18. Macaroni study Subjects Design 51 men and women
served lunch 1 day/week for 4 weeks
macaroni & cheese(500, 625, 750, 1000 g)
Hypothesized when subjects determined their own portion, the amount in serving dish would not affect intake, but if experimenter determined portion, it would affect intake.
Predicted subjects who restricted intake would resist environmental influence
Predicted subjects who are more prone to eat in response to environmental cues would directly be affected by portion size.
Also investigated whether men and women responded differently to portion size.
Subjects were interviewed by phone to determine they were age 21-40, in good health, not following a weight loss diet, not using meds that affected intake, not athletes in training, not preg. Or lactating, no food allergies or food restriction.
Subjects completed various questionnaires
BMI of subjects had to be within 20-28
Experiment used a between-subject design. One group rec’d entee on a plate, other group received in serving dish
Groups were matched by age, sex, BMI, and questionnaire score.
Subjects were seated in individual cubicles-served Kraft mac & cheese, carrot sticks(30g), snack size chocolate bar (17g) and water (1L)
Subjects had to eat carrots and choc. In full, eat as much or little of the rest

19. Conclusions/Discussion
Results
subjects consumed 30% more when offered largest portion
Conclusions/Discussion
larger portion led to greater intake
27 subjects in plate group, 24 in serving dish group
Subjects in both groups consumed significantly greater amounts of lunch entrée as portion size increased (P<0.0001)
Subjects consumed 30% more when presented the largest portion than when presented with smallest portion.
Serving dish group took greater amt per serving spoonful
Less than one half of subjects reported noticing difference in portion sizes
Future studies should determine effects of portion size are seen in different types of foods.
Mac & cheese has no distinct shape and people have difficulty judging portion size of foods with amorphous shape.

20. The French Paradox Objective Design
Compare portion size of foods in restaurants, supermarkets, cookbooks, buffet guides
Design
Comparison of Paris and Philadelphia
Conducted Jan-March 2001
France and US both affluent Western countries, both have major fashion industry and concern with appearance. A look at diet and health in two countries leads to what has been called the French Paradox. Mortality rate from heart disease is lower in France than US; French eat more total and saturated fat than Americans, consume less of fat-reduced products.
Collected data by measuring actual portion sizes and time spent eating on site in Paris and Philadelphia during January-March 2001, and through analysis of printed materials (rest. Guides and cookbooks).
Made sure rest. Were in similar neighborhoods, had similar prices, and same type of foods. Some times could compare same rest. Chain in both cities.

21. Super size me
Portion size me
Web video

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

23. 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

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

25. Hungry for Some Stale Movie Popcorn?
General Question
Does portion size effect
consumption?
The Field Study (Chicago, IL)
2x2 Design
Large vs. X-Large Popcorn (pre-weighed)
Fresh vs. 10-day-old Popcorn

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

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

28. 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

29. Yes . . . Container Sizes and Shapes Bias Usage Volume
Ounces of Juice
Poured 88% more into short wide glasses, but believed they poured bout the same
Hmmm does this still happen with experts and a specific target volume (say 1.5 oz)? 12 10
Amount
Poured
Estimate 8 6 4 2
Tall
Short
Slender
Wide
Glass
Glass

30. 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 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

31. Bartenders poured 28% more alcohol into tumblers than highball glasses
“When in Philadelphia, Should I Ask for a Tumbler or a Highball Glass?”
Bartenders poured 28% more alcohol into tumblers than highball glasses
Experience doesn’t eliminate bias
< 5 years
5+ years
0.5 1
1.5 2
2.5
Tall
Highball
Glass
Short
Tumbler oz

32. 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

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

34. METHODS Intervention: Three conditions:
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)

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

36. AMOUNT OF CANDY CONSUMPTION ACCORDING TO CONDITION10 9 8 7
Number of 6
on desk
candies 5
in desk
consumed 4
2 meters from desk 3 2 1
on desk
in desk
2 meters
Painter, J., Wansink, B., Hieggelki, J. (2002).
How Visibility and Convenience Influence
Candy Consumption. Appetite 38,
from desk

37. ACTUAL AND ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF CANDY CONSUMPTION12 10 8
Number of 6
actual
candies
estimated
consumed 4 2
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,

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

39. Average Number of Pretzels Consumed by Condition25 20 15
Number
Consumed 10 5
On the Desk
In the Desk
Away from Desk
Painter, J,E., North, J Effects of Visibility and Convenience on Snack Food Consumption.
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 103(9), A-81.

40. METHODS Two conditions: 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)

41. Increase in Dietary Intake when food is Visible (on desk)
Compared to Invisible (in desk)
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
% increase
30.00%
Grapes
25.00%
Chocolate
20.00%
carrots
15.00%
pretzels
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%

42. IV. Can Labels Change the Taste of Foods?
Study 1. Descriptive Labels in the Cafeteria
Study 2. Health Labels

43. Method
Basic question -- Do descriptive labels (in aggregate) impact consumers?
Four general types of descriptive menu labels
1) Geographic labels (Cajun or Italian)
2) Nostalgic labels (homestyle or Grandma’s)
3) Sensory labels (tender or satin)
4) Brand labels (Jack Daniels Chicken or Butterfinger Blizzard)

44. 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 Dutch Chocolate Pudding
Grandma’s Zucchini cookies

45. Dependent Variables Completed questionnaire at end of meal
Perception -- Taste (1 to 9) & Texture (1 to 9)
Calorie estimation
Repurchase intentions (Eat again within 2 weeks (1 to 9)

46. “Well, I know what I like” --> Maybe Not8 7
People evaluate descriptive foods as more favorable 6 5
Taste 4
Texture 3
Calories 2 1
Plain
Descriptive

47. Results: Effects are Less Strong with Desserts
Taste
No Label Label
Desserts
Main & Side Dishes

48. Results: Impact on Perceptions
Descriptive Labels* Influenced Perception
Was appealing vs. 6.7*
Tasted good vs. 7.3*
Number of calories 303 vs. 366*

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

50. 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 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
small
Large

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

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

53. Refillable Soup Bowls Increase Consumption,
but Not Perception of Consumption
300
250
200
Actual Calories
Calories
Consumed
150
Estimated Calories
100
Consumed 50
Normal
Soup
Bowls
Refillable
Soup
Bowls

54. Soup Study Fifty-four participants (72% male)
Details were not provided about the study, but bowls used in the study were different colors, subjects were guessing the purpose of the study.

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

56. 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
Subjects self selected a portion of nuts
Two conditions
Shelled nuts offered
Nuts in the shell offered

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

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

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

60. Quality Comparison Shelled Nuts vs Nuts in the Shell. P ≥
Quality Comparison Shelled Nuts vs Nuts in the Shell ** P ≥ .01 for each attribute, no significant differences
2.5 2
1.5
Taste
Texture 1
Quality
0.5
Shelled
In Shell
** Scale
1 Less appealing to 3 most appealing

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

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

63. Satiety of Portions ** No significant differences, P ≥ .015
4.5
Even though
consumption increased
by 56%, there was
no significant difference
in satiety 4
3.5 3
2.5
Full 2
1.5 1
0.5
Shells
visible
Shells
cleared
** Fullness Scale (1) very Hungry – (5) very full

64. Quality Comparison Shells Visible vs Shells Cleared. P ≥
Quality Comparison Shells Visible vs Shells Cleared ** P ≥ .01 for each attribute, no significant differences
** Scale (1) Least appealing – (3) most appealing

65. Solution Self monitoring Know what you are eating
Track what you are eating

66. 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

67. Efficacy of self monitoring

68. 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

69. Efficacy of self monitoring

70. 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.

71. Educate on portion size Educate on serving size
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.

72. Thank You . . .