1. Food Psychology James E. Painter PhD, RD Chair of the School of Family and Consumer Sciences Eastern Illinois University

2. 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)

3. I. Portion size 1. Restaurants

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

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

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

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

8. From the monster to the Riley burger

9. 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

10. Portion size me Web video Super size me

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

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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Large Bucket Extra- Large Bucket Fresh 10 Days Old

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

17. 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

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

19. 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

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

21. METHODS Intervention: 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)

22. 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

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

24. 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)

25. 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.

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

27. 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 Home-style Chicken Parmesan Satin Dutch Chocolate Pudding Grandma’s Zucchini cookies

28. “Well, I know what I like” --> Maybe Not People evaluate descriptive foods as more favorable 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PlainDescriptive Taste Texture Calories

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

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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.

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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

39. Solution  Self monitoring Know what you are eating Track what you are eating

40. 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

41. Efficacy of self monitoring

42. 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

43. Efficacy of self monitoring

44. 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.

45. Thank You...