EATING: Factors influencing eating and neural mechanisms Flashcards
(30 cards)
2 factors influencing attitudes to food and/or eating behaviour
- Early Exposure
2. Stress
3 elements of early exposure
- classical conditioning
- SLT
- mere exposure effect
classical conditioning AO1
with example of positive and negative attitudes towards food
- Learning food preferences through association
- Associate NS with an UCS
- E.g: fun/games at b-day party (UCS) + birthday cake (NS) → pleasant feelings (UCR) → CR
- UCS paired with NS
- Also leads to aversive attitudes to food
- E.g. bacterial poison (UCS) + food that contains it (NS) → UCR → CR as associate the food with the poison/being ill, avoid it in the future
classical conditioning A02
Garcia et al
• Fed flavoured water to lab rats
• Several hours later, rats were injected with substance that made them ill
• Poison (UCS) + water (NS) → UCR
• Later rats when offered flavoured water, didn’t drink it
• - However, rats’ eating still far less complex than humans, who eat also for cognitive and social, as well as biological and learning reasons.
• - Well controlled experiment
Social learning theory AO1
- Learning food preferences through observation
- Pay attention to role models, observe eating behaviour, retain memory of this, likely to imitate if results in positive rewards i.e. parents/peers enjoy certain foods
Social learning theory AO2: peer influence
Birch et al
- Changing children’s preferences
• Children seated at lunch next to a child who preferred a different veg (peas and carrots used)
• Children showed a shift in the preference, backed up through follow-up assessment several weeks later
Social learning theory: parental influence
Ogden et al
• Reported consistent correlations between parents and children in snack-food intake and eating motivations
• - non-experimental research – cannot establish cause and effect
Mere exposure effect AO1
- the more exposed we are the something, the more familiar we become to it, resulting in the attitude towards it
- if exposed to new foods, likely to have a negative attitude towards it
Mere exposure effect AO2
Birch and Marlin
• 2 year old children introduced to novel foods over 6 weeks
• condition 1, food presented 20x
• condition 2, food presented 10x
• condition 3, food presented 5x
• found it took 8-10 exposures before food preferences shifted significantly
• + well operationalized
• - mere exposure won’t get one to like everything
Early exposure: practical applications
- peers and parents can model healthy eating behaviour
* keep exposing children to new food, will take 8-10 exposures to get over neophobia
early exposure: IDA
- early exposure environmental
- based on behaviourist and social learning theories – nurture
- ignores nature and biological influences
- very determinist – might act as a justification for unhealthy eating behaviour
Stress introduction
- When stressed, may favour certain types of foods over others/change the amount we eat
- Stress affects individuals differently, depending on: biology e.g. gender, early experience e.g. MEE, CC, SLT and cognitions e.g. attitudes, beliefs
- IDA: Holistic account of interaction, sometimes between nature and nurture.
stress model
Individual differences Model – Greeno and Wing
3 elements of stress model
- external eaters
- emotional eaters
- restrained eaters
external eaters
- eat in response to environmental cues
- when food is available, not when hungry, eat in response to food cues e.g. sight/smell
- more likely to increase food intake when stressed as long as food is available
emotional eaters
- fail to distinguish between feelings and hunger
- when anxious or emotionally aroused, misinterpret emotion as hunger
- may be due to inconsistent parenting
- increase food intake when stressed as experience anxiety as hunger
restrained eaters
- deliberately try to limit their food intake e.g. diet, using will power to supress food intake
- will power undermined by stress
- people who have to try hard to control eating increase eating when stressed
- people who do not have to try hard are unaffected by stress
Stress model IDA
• provides justification for eating healthy foods as very deterministic
• GP should say eating behaviour is a consequence of free will – so able to change behaviour
- external/emotional fairly vague - not as helpful as more reductionist ideas e.g. SLT or biologocal reasons
emotional eaters AO2
Oliver et al
• Condition 1 – stress – 4 min speech to prepare
• Condition 2 – control – listened to piece of neutral text
• Physiological measures and self-report used to assess: appetite for range of foods immediately before meal, food intake during meal
• Did not alter food intake but emotional eaters had more sweet and high-fat foods, more ‘energy-dense’ meal
• Amount of stress doesn’t affect eating habits – depends on individual differences
• Women: more stress-related eating (i.e. emotional eating, where anxiety confused with hunger) than men. Supports IDM, as effect of stress different by gender.
• + Controlled experiment
• + well operationalised objective measures.
• - Demand characteristics if ppts guessed aim of the study from appetite assessment.
external eaters AO2
Conner et al
• Ppts kept daily record of no. and severity of daily hassles and no. of snacks consumed over 7 days
• 33 female, 27 male students
• Questionnaire assessing whether: restrained/emotional/external
• Ppts that scored highly on measures of external eating, significant positive relationship between hassles and snacking (not for emotional/restrained)
• - Non-experimental – no cause → effect
• - Questionnaires – social desirability and records may not cover secret eating
Stress model: practical applications
- a consequence of own free will
- surround external eaters with healthy food, avoid lots of exposure to food, work hard to regulate the times they eat at
2 main neural mechanisms in the control of eating
- dual centre model of eating
- other neural mechanisms
dual centre model of eating AO1
- eating behaviour controlled by two main nuclei in hypothamulus
- blood glucose levels increase, sensed by hypothamulus, VHM = ventro-medial hypothamulus, satiety reached/feeling full, reduced food intake, reduction in blood glucose levels
- blood glucose levels fall, sensed by hypothamulus, lateral hypothamulus activated aka feeding centre, feel hunger, signals food intake, blood glucose levels rise
dual centre model of eating: AO2
Hetherington and Ranson
• lesions damaged VHM
• rats overate → obese
• so VHM under normal conditions acts as satiety centre
• lesion had prevented signals being sent – rats didn’t feel full
Anand and Brobeck
• lesion caused a loss of eating behaviour when added to lateral hypothamulus
• loss of feeding = aphagia
• this area is the hunger centre under normal conditions
More research
• later studies confirmed this: electrical stimulation of VMH inhibited feeding and stimulation of LH produced feeding, confirming normal functions