how the environment impacts individual choice health – rethinking healthy eating: examining the...

Project Health – Rethinking Healthy Eating: Examining the Evidence 37

How the Environment Impacts Individual Choice

“Obesity has been described as a mismatch between human physiology and the

environment in which we live.”1

Food Availability

There were up to 530 more calories

available for each Canadian to consume in

2002 than there were in 1985.2 This increase

in available calories is directly correlated with

the rising obesity rate, making increased

energy intake the most likely reason that

people have gained weight.2

Taste and Price

Taste is the most important factor influencing

food choice, followed by food cost.3-10

Studies show that price modifications are

more effective than educational health

messages to motivate people to purchase

healthier foods.7,11

Is “pizza cheaper than salad”12 in your workplace?

Ba

rriers to

He

alth

y E

atin

g


Barriers to Healthy Eating

Portion Sizes

Portion size appears to be a major factor for

how much food people consume; as the

amount of food served suggests that it is an

appropriate amount to eat.10,12-15 In fact, the

‘French paradox’ appears to be nothing

more than smaller portion sizes.16

Meals eaten away from home typically

encourage people to eat too many calories

because of high calorie density and large

portion sizes.4,7,17-20 One study showed that

when eating out, people purchased meals

that contained an average of 827 calories

per meal.17

In addition, on days that people eat fast

food, they consume about 205 more calories

than they do on days they do not eat fast

food.21

People often underestimate the calories in

food, especially for unhealthy items.21 In one

study, participants underestimated the

caloric content of meals by more than 600

calories.22

Trends in larger portion sizes make it difficult

for individuals to resist eating foods that are

high in calories, fat, sugar and salt especially

when not at home.

Over the past few decades the largest increases in portion sizes have occurred in fast

foods such as hamburgers (18% larger), cheeseburgers (24% larger), french fries (57%

larger), and sweetened beverages (62% larger).23



Educating people about the effects of portion

size seems to have little to no effect on their

food consumption.24 In an experiment, a

group of university graduate students were

educated on the effects of portion sizes on

food consumption. Six weeks later these

students were invited to a party where they

knew they would be part of a study. The

students were divided into two groups, with

each group receiving different sized bowls.

The students were allowed to consume as

many snacks as they wanted. The group

with the larger bowls served themselves

55% more food compared to the group with

smaller bowls. When the students were

informed of this effect, the typical response

was “maybe that happens to other people,

but not to me”.25

Food For Thought: PORTION SIZE

People who are served larger portion sizes consume more food but do not report

greater feelings of fullness. This is true even when it involves food that tastes bad. In

one study, people were given stale 14-day old popcorn in boxes twice the normal size.

Even though they complained about the taste, the participants who were given the

larger boxes of stale popcorn ate 34% more popcorn than participants given stale

popcorn in normal sized boxes.13

The bottom line: Larger portion sizes cause people to eat more



Television, Media and Advertising

The nutrient content of the majority of

advertised foods goes against nutrition

education and guidelines and may

encourage the development of chronic

disease.26 The pattern of nutrition imbalance

found in advertised food mimics the pattern

of imbalance in the common North American

diet, leading researchers to believe that

television commercials have a direct impact

on what consumers eat. Approximately 85%

of foods advertised in Canada are for foods

designated as “Foods to Limit” by Canada’s

Food Guide.27

Among children, there is an association

between watching commercial television and

obesity. However, when children watched

other forms of media that did not contain

food commercials, there was no association

with obesity. These results suggest that it is

the commercials themselves that stimulate

unhealthy food consumption and weight

gain.28

Social modelling theory predicts that we will

mimic the behaviours of other people. This

effect was shown when people watched soft

drinks commercials and then subsequently

drank more pop.29 Similar effects have also

been shown after people are shown fast

food commercials.30

Advertised foods do not have to be present

in order to have an effect. Adults shown food

commercials ate more food overall even

though the food they ate was not presented

in any advertisements they watched.31

Women who habitually diet and monitor their

weight and men in general may be

especially prone to increased eating when

exposed to advertising food cues.31 Food

commercials may act as a stimulus that can

trigger a desire to eat, even when the viewer

is not hungry.31

Other forms of advertising such as brand

logos may also act as food cues, which can

also subsequently affect food consumption

patterns.31



Convenience

“Effort is not required to continue eating when food is present; effort is required to

refrain from eating when food is present.”12

Many studies have examined the

relationship between the food environment

and weight. A high ratio of fast food

restaurants and convenience stores in a

neighbourhood is associated with increased

weight.32-35

The availability of poor nutritional choices

has a profound impact on what people eat.36

For example, many stores sell unhealthy

‘snack’ foods placed near the cash register.36

The mere presence of convenient ready-to-

eat foods increases the likelihood that

people will consume them, leading to higher

overall energy intakes.36

Therefore, the impact of vending machines,

food in common areas and foods placed at

influential locations such as near cash

registers in cafeteria lines should be

carefully considered.

Food For Thought: THE LAW OF LEAST EFFORT

In one study, secretaries who had chocolates placed on their desk ate twice as many as

secretaries that had chocolates placed only six feet away.37

The bottom line: As effort goes up, food consumption goes down.



Time Pressures

Forty-one per cent of Canadians say that

their life is so hectic that they find it hard to

include healthier foods in their diets.38 The

feeling that there is not enough time in the

day to do everything has been implicated in

the decline of family meals and the

increased consumption of convenience and

fast foods.39,40 When asked, people admitted

making ‘quick’ foods because they did not

have the time or energy to cook, despite

knowing that it was not ‘good’ for them.39

Common barriers to making family meals

include: being a single parent, working an

inflexible job, and working a schedule that

interferes with family time such as evening

and night shifts.39

People are more likely to cook meals at

home if they have cooking skills and flexible

or reduced work schedules (i.e., they can be

home in the afternoon).39,40



Point-of-Purchase Nutrition Information

Most individuals underestimate the calorie

content of food. Providing nutrition labels

gives consumers an opportunity to improve

nutritional intakes.3,17,41-43

However, nutrition information has to be

readily available at the point-of-purchase, as

only 0.1% of people look for nutrition

information before making their purchase.

Websites, pamphlets, and tray liners are not

an effective format to promote behaviour

change.20

In order to prevent indulgence at a later point

in the day, it is also important that nutrition

information be provided along with an

average estimate of how many calories

people need for the day.44,45 For example,

“this menu item has 500 calories; the

average person needs 2000 calories a day.”

Consumers welcome information in the form

of nutrition labels and logos.46 However,

providing nutrition information is not always

an effective way to improve dietary

intakes.4,14,47-49

Most Canadians report being interested in

nutrition, however, 61% think that there are

so many different things to consider when

buying foods, (e.g., fat, trans fat, sugar,

calories, fibre, locally produced, organic,

etc.), that it is impossible for an ordinary

person to figure out what to eat.38

Consumers report that nutrition logos

assigned to products that meet specific

nutrition criteria influence their food

choices.50 However, studies on this type of

labelling fail to show substantial positive

effects on actual food choice when logos are

placed on healthier food items.51

To complicate matters, nutrition labels are

not always accurate. One study analyzed

foods in a lab found that the calorie content

of packaged food was an average of 18%

higher than what was stated on the label.52

Therefore, providing nutrition information is

probably not effective as a stand-alone

intervention but may be useful as part of a

comprehensive strategy.14

Is it Healthy?

It is difficult for the average person to tell if a food item is healthy.

For example, one very healthy sounding Raisin Bran Muffin has:53

360 calories (almost 20% of average daily needs)

10 grams of fat (15% of average daily needs)

790 mg sodium (over 50% of daily recommendation)

6 grams of fibre (considered a very high source of fibre)

37 grams of sugar (100% of daily recommendation)54



Stress

A stressful work environment where workers

experience high demand, low job control,

and low social support can negatively

influence eating behaviours, and often leads

to skipping meals, eating at workstations,

extra snacking, and a preference for calorie

dense foods.12,55,56 In this type of work

environment, health problems are more

likely to occur.12,57,58

Increasing BMI has been associated with

work related psychological factors such as

fatigue, tension, anxiety, and depression.58-60

It is likely that some workers use food as a

way to cope with job strain, which

contributes to the development of

obesity.58,61,62

“It’s like a quick pat on the

shoulder or something like that.

You’ve kept up with your day;

you’ve done a great job, here have

a cookie”.12

- Manufacturing Worker



Social Norms and Cues

Eating food with other people can create a

sense of belonging, and social norms can

dictate individual behaviours.22,63 Therefore,

individual employee behaviour can be

influenced by the health-related norms and

values of other co-workers.57,66

Having other people present while eating

can influence both the amount and types of

food people eat. Eating with others,

especially familiar people, can extend eating

occasions and suppress self-monitoring.15

Individuals use social cues to decide what to

eat and how much to eat without attracting

negative judgment from others.19,64 It has

been shown that individuals will eat more

when eating companions eat more and vice

versa.65 This effect can be profound, with

one researcher finding that meal size almost

doubled when subjects ate with seven or

more people.15

Work related activities that revolve around

eating and drinking can promote excess

caloric intake. Such activities include

workplace celebrations, fundraisers, social

events, and entertaining clients.34

Food For Thought: SOCIAL INFLUENCE

In one study, two different bowls of crackers were provided to participants. Subjects

unknowingly copied another person’s behaviour by eating whichever type of cracker

the other person ate.13

The bottom line: Eating behaviours are unknowingly influenced by others.



Holidays

“Corporate break rooms need

not become repositories for

unused Halloween candy and

holiday leftovers.” 66

The holidays are a time when cultural and

social influences combine to create high risk

environments conducive to weight gain.68

Factors such as eating with others, longer

meal times, easy access to food, and large

portion sizes increase overall calorie

intake.68 In addition, holiday celebrations are

likely to include alcoholic beverages, which

contribute a significant amount of calories.

The increased stress, caloric intake and

lower physical activity levels that occur

during the holiday season significantly

contribute to the weight status of

employees.68

Most people gain between 0.62 to 0.70 kg

(1.4 to 1.5 pounds) per year.69,70 Half of this

weight is gained between the Thanksgiving

and Christmas holidays and is not lost in the

summer months as commonly believed.68,71

The cumulative effects of holiday weight gain

are likely to contribute to an increase in body

weight.70,71 Overweight and obese people

seem to be especially prone to holiday

weight gain.68,71



Implications for Workplaces

Many of the environmental factors that

influence food choice are outside the control

of individual employees. This highlights the

necessity for creating a supportive healthy

eating environment in the workplace. There

are many strategies and policies that

workplaces can implement to help improve

employee’s eating habits.

Refer to the section ‘Part III - Making the

Shift: Comprehensive Strategies to Promote

Healthy Eating’ for strategies to improve the

food environment in your workplace. This

resource is available for download at:

http://www.projecthealth.ca under ‘Project

Health Resources’.

http://www.projecthealth.ca/



Environmental Influence References 1. Hill JO, Peters JC, Wyatt HR. Using the energy gap to

address obesity: A commentary. J Am Diet Assoc.

2009;109:1848-1853.

2. Bleich S, Cutler D, Murray C, Adams A. Why is the

developed world obese? Annu Rev Public Health.

2008;29:273-295.

3. Howlett E, Burton AS, Bates K, Huggins K. Coming to a

restaurant near you? Potential customer responses to

nutrition information disclosure on menus. Journal of

Consumer Research. 2009;36:494-503.

4. Harnack LJ, French SA, Oakes JM, Story MT, Jeffery

RW, Rydell SA. Effects of calorie labeling and value size

pricing on fast food meal choices: Results from an experimental trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008;5:63.

5. Seymour JD, Yaroch AL, Serdula M, Blanck HM, Khan

LK. Impact of nutrition environmental interventions on

point-of-purchase behavior in adults: A review. Prev Med.

2004;39 Suppl 2:S108-36.

6. Eertmans A, Baeyens F, & Van den Bergh, O. Food likes

and their relative importance in human eating behavior:

Review and preliminary suggestions for health promotion. . Health Education Research. 2001;16:443-456.

7. Elinder LS, Jansson M. Obesogenic environments –

aspects on measurement and indicators. Public Health

Nutr. 2008;12:307-315.

8. French SA. Pricing effects on food choices. J Nutr.

2003;133:841S-843S.

9. Story M, Kaphingst KM, Robinson-O'Brien R, Glanz K.

Creating healthy food and eating environments: Policy and environmental approaches. Annu Rev Public Health.

2008;29:253-272.

10. Vermeer WM, Alting E, Steenhuis I, Seidell JC. Value

for money or making the healthy choice: The impact of

proportional pricing on consumers' portion size choices.

Eur J Public Health. 2009

11. Block JP, Chandra A, McManus KD, Willett WC. Point-of-purchase price and education intervention to

reduce consumption of sugary soft drinks. Am J Public

Health. 2010;100:1427-1433.

12. Devine CM, Nelson JA, Chin N, Dozier A, Fernandez

ID. "Pizza is cheaper than salad": Assessing workers' views

for an environmental food intervention. Obesity (Silver

Spring). 2007;15 Suppl 1:57S-68S.

13. Cohen D, Farley TA. Eating as an automatic behavior. Prev Chronic Dis. 2008;5:A23.

14. Krukowski RA, Harvey-Berino J, Kolodinsky J,

Narsana RT, Desisto TP. Consumers may not use or

understand calorie labeling in restaurants. J Am Diet Assoc.

2006;106:917-920.

15. Wansink B. Environmental factors that increase the

food intake and consumption volume of unknowing consumers. Annu Rev Nutr. 2004;24:455-479.

16. Rozin P, Kabnick K, Pete E, Fischler C, Shields C. The

ecology of eating: Smaller portion sizes in France than in

the United States help explain the French paradox. Psychol

Sci. 2003;14:450-454.

17. Bassett MT, Dumanovsky T, Huang C, et al.

Purchasing behavior and calorie information at fast-food

chains in New York City, 2007. Am J Public Health. 2008;98:1457-1459.

18. Kruger J, Yore MM, Bauer DR, Kohl HW. Selected

barriers and incentives for worksite health promotion

services and policies. . Am J Health Promot. 2007;21:439-

447.

19. Polivy J, Herman CP. Mental health and eating

behaviours: A bi-directional relation. Can J Public Health.

2005;96 Suppl 3:S43-6, S49-53.

20. Roberto CA, Agnew H, Brownell KD. An observational

study of consumers' accessing of nutrition information in

chain restaurants. Am J Public Health. 2009;99:820-821.

21. Dumanovsky T, Huang CY, Bassett MT, Silver LD.

Consumer awareness of fast-food calorie information in

New York City after implementation of a menu labeling

regulation. Am J Public Health. 2010;100:2520-2525.

22. Burton S, Creyer EH, Kees J, Huggins K. Attacking the

obesity epidemic: The potential health benefits of providing

nutrition information in restaurants. Am J Public Health. 2006;96:1669-1675.

23. Sharpe K, Staelin R, Huber J. Using extremeness

aversion to fight obesity: Policy implications of context

dependent demand. Journal of Consumer Research.

2008;35:406-422.

24. Wansink B, van Ittersum K. Portion size me:

Downsizing our consumption norms. J Am Diet Assoc.

2007;107:1103-1106.

25. Wansink B, Cheney MM. Super bowls: Serving bowl

size and food consumption. JAMA. 2005;293:1727-1728.

26. Mink M, Evans A, Moore CG, Calderon KS, Deger S.

Nutritional imbalance endorsed by televised food

advertisements. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010;110:904-910.

27. Kelly B, Halford JC, Boyland EJ, et al. Television food

advertising to children: A global perspective. Am J Public

Health. 2010;100:1730-1736.

28. Zimmerman FJ, Bell JF. Associations of television

content type and obesity in children. Am J Public Health.

2010;100:334-340.

29. Koordeman R, Anschutz DJ, van Baaren RB, Engels

RC. Exposure to soda commercials affects sugar-sweetened

soda consumption in young women. An observational

experimental study Appetite. 2010;54:619-622.

30. Scully M, Dixon H, Wakefield M. Association between

commercial television exposure and fast-food consumption

among adults. Public Health Nutr. 2009;12:105-110.

31. Harris JL, Bargh JA, Brownell KD. Priming effects of

television food advertising on eating behavior. Health

Psychol. 2009;28:404-413.

32. Spence JC, Cutumisu N, Edwards J, Raine KD,

Smoyer-Tomic K. Relation between local food environments and obesity among adults. BMC Public

Health. 2009;9:192.

33. Inagami,S., Cohen, D.A., Brown, A.F., Asch, S.M.

Body mass index, neighbourhood fast food and restaurant

concentration, and car ownership. Journal of Urban Health.

2009;86:683-695.

34. Sharma AM, Padwal R. Obesity is a sign - over-eating is a symptom: An aetiological framework for the

assessment and management of obesity. Obes Rev.

2010;11:362-370.

35. Freedman DA. Local food environments: They're all

stocked differently. Am J Community Psychol.

2009;44:382-393.

36. Farley TA, Baker ET, Futrell L, Rice JC. The ubiquity

of energy-dense snack foods: A national multicity study. Am J Public Health. 2010;100:306-311.

37. Wansink B, Huckabee M. De-marketing obesity.

California Management Review. 2005;47:1-13.

38. Dietitians of Canada. 2006 nutrition month campaign,

"make wise food choices wherever you go!" backgrounder.

2006.



39. Jabs J, Devine CM, Bisogni CA, Farrell TJ, Jastran M,

Wethington E. Trying to find the quickest way: Employed

mothers' constructions of time for food. J Nutr Educ Behav.

2007;39:18-25.

40. Welch N, McNaughton SA, Hunter W, Hume C,

Crawford D. Is the perception of time pressure a barrier to

healthy eating and physical activity among women? Public

Health Nutr. 2009;12:888-895.

41. Bleich S, Pollack K. The publics' understanding of

daily caloric recommendations and their perceptions of

calorie posting in chain restaurants. BMC Public Health.

2010;10:121.

42. Post RE, Mainous AG,3rd, Diaz VA, Matheson EM,

Everett CJ. Use of the nutrition facts label in chronic

disease management: Results from the national health and

nutrition examination survey. J Am Diet Assoc.

2010;110:628-632.

43. Temple JL, Johnson K, Recupero K, Suders H.

Nutrition labels decrease energy intake in adults consuming

lunch in the laboratory. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010;110:1094-1097.

44. Roberto CA, Larsen PD, Agnew H, Baik J, Brownell

KD. Evaluating the impact of menu labeling on food

choices and intake. Am J Public Health. 2010;100:312-318.

45. Berman M, Lavizzo-Mourey R. Obesity prevention in

the information age: Caloric information at the point of

purchase. JAMA. 2008;300:433-435.

46. Mackison D, Wrieden WL, Anderson AS. Making an

informed choice in the catering environment: What do

consumers want to know? J Hum Nutr Diet. 2009;22:567-

573.

47.Piron J, Smith LV, Simon P, Cummings PL, Kuo T.

Knowledge, attitudes and potential response to menu

labelling in an urban public health clinic population. Public

Health Nutr. 2010;13:550-555.

48. Ellis S, Glanville NT. Trans fat information on food

labels: Consumer use and interpretation. Can J Diet Pract

Res. 2010;71:6-10.

49. Elbel B, Kersh R, Brescoll VL, Dixon LB. Calorie

labeling and food choices: A first look at the effects on

low-income people in New York City. Health Aff

(Millwood). 2009;28:w1110-21.

50. Driskell JA, Schake MC, Detter HA. Using nutrition

labeling as a potential tool for changing eating habits of

university dining hall patrons. J Am Diet Assoc.

2008;108:2071-2076.

51. Vyth EL, Steenhuis IH, Heymans MW, Roodenburg

AJ, Brug J, Seidell JC. Influence of placement of a

nutrition logo on cafeteria menu items on lunchtime food

choices at Dutch work sites. J Am Diet Assoc. 2011;111:131-136.

52. Urban LE, Dallal GE, Robinson LM, Ausman LM,

Saltzman E, Roberts SB. The accuracy of stated energy

contents of reduced-energy, commercially prepared foods.

J Am Diet Assoc. 2010;110:116-123.

53. Tim Horton’s. Canadian nutrition calculator.

http://www.timhortons.com/nutrition/index.php. Accessed

24/12/2010.

54. Johnson RK, Appel LJ, Brands M, et al. Dietary sugars

intake and cardiovascular health: A scientific statement

from the American Heart Association. Circulation.

2009;120:1011-1020.

55. Schulte PA, Wagner GR, Ostry A, et al. Work, obesity,

and occupational safety and health. Am J Public Health. 2007;97:428-436.

56. Raulio S, Roos E, Mukala K, Prattala R. Can working

conditions explain differences in eating patterns during

working hours? Public Health Nutr. 2008;11:258-270.

57. Lemon SC, Zapka J, Li W, Estabrook B, Magner R,

Rosal MC. Perceptions of worksite support and employee

obesity, activity and diet. American Journal of Health

Behaviours. 2009;33:299-308.

58. Nishitani N, Sakakibara H, Akiyama I. Eating

behaviour related to obesity and job stress in male Japanese

workers. Nutrition. 2009;25:45-50.

59. Wardle J, Chida Y, Gibson EL, Whitaker KL, Steptoe

A. Stress and adiposity: A meta-analysis of longitudinal

studies. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2011;19(4):771-778.

60. Brunner EJ, Chandola T, Marmot MG. Prospective

effect of job strain on general and central obesity in the Whitehall II Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165:828-837.

61. Lee R. The new pandemic: Super Stress? Explore (NY).

2010;6:7-

62. Fernandez ID, Su H, Winters PC, Liang H. Association

of workplace chronic and acute stressors with employee

weight status: Data from worksites in turmoil. J Occup

Environ Med. 2010;52 Suppl 1:S34-41.

63. Raine KD. Determinants of healthy eating in Canada:

An overview and synthesis. Can J Public Health. 2005;96

Suppl 3:S8-14, S8-15.

64. Sela A, Berger J, Liu W. Variety, vice, and virtue: How

assortment size influences option choice. Journal of


65. Herman CP, Roth DA, Polivy J. Effects of the presence

of others on food intake: A normative interpretation. Psychol Bull. 2003;129:873-886.

66. Christakis NA, Fowler JH. The spread of obesity in a

large social network over 32 years. N Engl J Med.

2007;357:370-379.

67. Heinen L, Darling H. Addressing obesity in the

workplace: The role of employers. The Milbank Quarterly.

2009;87:101-122.

68. Hull HR, Radley D, Dinger MK, Fields DA. The effect

of the Thanksgiving holiday on weight gain. Nutr J.

2006;5:29.

69. Lombard CB, Deeks AA, Teede HJ. A systematic

review of interventions aimed at the prevention of weight

gain in adults. Public Health Nutr. 2009;12:2236-2246.

70. Jeffery RW, McGuire MT, French SA. Prevalence and

correlates of large weight gains and losses. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2002;26:969-972.

71. Yanovski JA, Yanovski SZ, Sovik KN, Nguyen TT,

O'Neil PM, Sebring NG. A prospective study of holiday

weight gain. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:861-867.

http://www.timhortons.com/nutrition/index.php



Common Psychological Biases That Influence

Health Behaviours

The human mind is extremely complex and influences food choices without

conscious awareness. These psychological biases can prevent people from making

consistent healthy food choices.

Cognitive Bias

A cognitive bias occurs when the brain

allows judgments and decisions to be made

based on personal experience, likes, dislikes

and cultural experiences without supporting

evidence. Several cognitive biases exist that

apply to how people think about health.

Optimistic Bias

From a nutrition perspective, optimistic bias

causes people to underestimate the

consequences of their food intakes. People

usually rate their nutrition-related risk to be

lower compared to others.1,2 As a result of

this bias, people accept the messages in

health promotion campaigns but believe

them to be more applicable to others than to

themselves.

Optimistic bias was evident in the report:

Recommendations of the Sodium Working

Group.

“Public opinion research has shown that Canadians are aware of sodium as a health issue, but perceive it as everybody else’s problem. Very few understand what a healthy amount of sodium is, and most continue to have high dietary intakes.” 3

Because of this bias, people do not realize

that their diet requires improvement. As a

result, they fail to take action.

Tailored feedback from health professionals

seems to be the most appropriate method to

address this bias. However, research shows

that some people receiving negative tailored

feedback are even less likely than others to

take action on a health issue.2



Status Quo Bias

“When in doubt, do nothing!”

People seem to prefer having things stay the

same.4

Part of the status quo bias is a tendency to

feel worse about poor outcomes of changes

they made compared to poor outcomes that

resulted from not making a change.5

Brand loyalty is an example of status quo

bias. Once people are relatively happy with a

product, they will not seek out alternatives,

even if superior products become available.4

The status quo bias might help to explain

why it is so hard to make changes as an

individual. It also might help to explain why

people tend to resist imposed changes.

Restraint Bias

“I’ll buy this bag of cookies and

just have one…”

There is a tendency to overestimate one’s

ability to resist impulsive behaviours, which

causes people to expose themselves to

temptation.6

The assumption that individuals “should be

able to” control themselves could explain

acceptance of food temptations in the

workplace environment. Unfortunately,

people are tempted and eventually succumb

to behaviours that result in poor health

outcomes. A common example is bringing in

high-calorie “treats” to share with for co-

workers, ultimately contributing to weight

gain.



Hyperbolic Discounting

“The time to begin most

things is ten years ago."

~Mignon McLaughlin

People seem to be aware of the risks related

to eating unhealthy foods but seem to

“forget” about long-term health goals when

they make food decisions.7

Hyperbolic discounting is the preference for

immediate payoffs compared to future gains.

For example, eating a tasty brownie now

verses enjoying good health in the future.

This bias is also evident in the form of other

human traits such as procrastination,

overspending and failure to save for

retirement.8

‘Sin taxes’ such as those placed on tobacco

or alcohol products have been used in the

past to decrease this bias, as there is an

immediate negative consequence to making

an unhealthy decision.7

Third Person Bias

“…that might fool someone

else, but it won’t fool me…”

The third person bias is the tendency to

believe that others are more influenced by

media messages than oneself.9

However, simply seeing a logo or watching a

food commercial might create a desire to

eat!10

The billions of dollars that are spent

advertising food products should suggest

that they are an effective way to increase

sales. Especially since the pattern of

nutritional imbalance found in the common

American diet mimics the pattern of

imbalance in advertised foods.11



The “Halo” Effect

“These chips have no trans fat,

so I can eat as many as I want…”

How a particular food is marketed can

influence whether or not one chooses to

eat it and how much of it is consumed. A

halo effect occurs when one judges a

food be ‘healthy’ because one

component of it is perceived as healthy.

People tend to underestimate the caloric

content of foods served at restaurants

that market themselves as ‘healthy’. As a

result, they often order higher calorie

side dishes, which contributes to higher

overall caloric intakes.12

Similarly, when snack foods are

marketed as ‘healthy’ many people

assume that these foods either taste bad

or can be consumed in limitless

amounts.13-15

Just mentioning certain ingredients or

attributes can create positive or negative

biases about the perceived taste of food.

In one study, the mere mention of soy

made people evaluate a product as

“grainy” and “tasteless” compared to

those who tasted the same product with

no mention of soy. Suggesting that the

product contained soy made people

believe that they tasted it, even though

the product did not contain any soy.13

Food product names also have a huge

effect on whether people choose to eat

them. Descriptive names tend to

increase taste ratings and overall sales.

They also make people think that they

contain more calories and are more

satisfying than menu items with plain

names.12 For example, “Traditional

Cajun Red Beans with Rice” verses “Red

Beans with Rice”. 13


The psychological factors that influence food

related behaviours occur outside the

conscious awareness of individuals.

Educating people about these psychological

influences does little to change the individual

perception of health and lifestyle behaviours,

as people continue to believe that the

messages are more applicable to others

than themselves.

It is important for health promoters to be

aware of these psychological influences and

accept them as part of the human condition,

rather than having an expectation that

people ‘should’ behave differently.

The most important strategy to counter these

psychological biases is to ensure that the

workplace food environment is structured in

such a way that healthy eating is ‘just

another part’ of the average workday. For

strategies to implement supportive healthy

eating environments in workplaces, please

to the section ‘Part III - Making the Shift:

Comprehensive Strategies to Promote

Healthy Eating’. This resource is available

for download at: http://www.projecthealth.ca

under ‘Project Health Resources’.

http://www.projecthealth.ca/



Psychological Bias References

1. Shepherd R, Shepherd R. Resistance to changes in diet.

Proc Nutr Soc. 2002;61:267-272.

2. Raats MM, Sparks P. Unrealistic optimism about diet-related risks: Implications for interventions. Proc Nutr Soc.

1995;54:737-745.

3. Sodium Working Group. Sodium reduction strategy for

Canada, recommendations of the Sodium Working Group.

2010.

4. Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R. Status quo bias in decision

making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1988;1:7-59.

5. Fleming SM, Thomas CL, Dolan RJ. Overcoming status

quo bias in the human brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.

2010;107:6005-6009.

6. Nordgren LF, van Harreveld F, van der Pligt J. The

restraint bias: How the illusion of self-restraint promotes

impulsive behavior. Psychol Sci. 2009;20:1523-1528.

7. Scharff RL. Obesity and hyperbolic discounting:

Evidence and implications. J Consum Policy. 2009;32:3-21.

8. Angeletos G, Laibson D, Repetto A, Tobacman J,

Weinberg S. The hyperbolic consumption model:

Calibration, simulation, and empirical evaluation. Journal

of Economic Perspectives. 2001;15:47-68.

9. Sun Y, Pan Z, Shen L. Understanding the third-person

perception: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Journal of

Communication.;58:280-300.

10. Harris JL, Bargh JA, Brownell KD. Priming effects of

television food advertising on eating behavior. Health

Psychol. 2009;28:404-413.

11. Mink M, Evans A, Moore CG, Calderon KS, Deger S.

Nutritional imbalance endorsed by televised food

advertisements. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010;110:904-910.

12. Chandon P, Wansink B. The biasing health halos of fast-food restaurant health claims: Lower calorie estimates

and higher side-dish consumption intentions. Journal of


13. Wansink B, van Ittersum K, Painter JE. How

descriptive food names bias sensory perceptions in

restaurants. Food Quality and Preference. 2005;16:393-

400.

14. Wansink B, Huckabee M. De-marketing obesity. California Management Review. 2005;47:1-13.

15. Howlett E, Burton AS, Bates K, Huggins K. Coming to

a restaurant near you? Potential customer responses to

nutrition information disclosure on menus. Journal of




Physiological Barriers to Healthy Eating

Will Power, Self-Control, and Personal Responsibility

Self-control is required help people follow a

healthy diet. But what is will power?

The Self-Control Theory

Researchers have been investigating the

ability of subjects to exert self-control under

different conditions. There are a wide variety

of behaviours that are expected of

employees during any given workday that

require the use of self-control (e.g., paying

attention during meetings).3 What is

interesting is that self-control seems to have

a limited energy source.3

How Will Power Works

Researchers believe that will power is

controlled by the brain. Even though the

brain only makes up 2% of body mass, it

uses 20% of the body’s energy.3 Each time

participants in studies engage in an effort of

self-control, there is a small but measurable

drop in blood glucose.4,5 It appears that

exerting self-control causes the brain to use

up just enough blood glucose to make it

difficult to complete a secondary act of self-

control. 3


1. Employees will likely perform better

when they are well nourished (i.e.,

skipping meals will lead to a drop in

blood glucose that impair one’s ability to

concentrate).

2. Tempting employees with unhealthy

foods when self-control is at its lowest

(e.g., right before lunch), or when they

are trying to concentrate (e.g., during a

meeting) makes it very difficult for them

to consistently eat a healthy diet.6

The self control theory may also help to

explain some other food related

phenomenon such as the “What the Hell”,7,8

and “Token Salad” effects9 as well as other

justification type behaviours described on

the following page.10

Food for Thought: SELF-CONTROL INFLUENCES HEALTH BEHAVIOURS

Even if employees resist temptation initially, research shows that individuals who are

trying to maintain a healthy diet usually have a breakdown in self-control later in the

day.3,4 One study even showed that smokers were more likely to smoke after being

required to resist eating cookies.11

The bottom line: Unhealthy food temptations may impact other health behaviours as

well.11



“What The Hell?”7,8

“I’ve already blown my diet; I

might as well keep going”

The “What The Hell” effect is a reaction that

dieters have, often causing them to abandon

their diets especially in situations where

dieters have less control over food choices

or feel deprived. Once dieters give in and

break their diet, they feel that the day is lost.

This results in giving into further temptation

and eating more of whatever food is

available.7,8

The Token Salad

“I’ll have the burger and fries”

The majority of consumers are health

conscious, however, the food industry

reports that consumers say they want more

salads offered, but when they are added to

the menu, salad sales do not increase.9,13 In

fact, when healthy items are added to the

menu, some food providers notice an

increase in the sale of the least healthy

menu items.9,13

The self-control theory may explain why

people seek out nutrition education, request

healthy eating programs, demand healthy

foods on menus and then fail to actually

make healthy ‘choices’. The very thing that

people need to exercise self-control when

faced with eating decisions is depleted when

they are hungry (i.e., blood glucose), causing

them to make more indulgent ‘choices’ when

they are available.

Justification

“It was a tough day at the office,

we should go out tonight…”

People working towards a goal that requires

high-personal effort, (e.g., completing a

major presentation at work) feel that they

can indulge after meeting that goal.9,10,12

Food For Thought: INDULGENT DISTRACTIONS

A group of participants had to resist eating a plate of cookies while completing a

challenging mental task. They gave up after only 8 minutes. The group that was

allowed to eat the cookies lasted 19 minutes, while another group that did not have any

food provided to them lasted 21 minutes.6

The bottom line: The availability of tempting foods when employees are trying to work

can be mentally distracting and counterproductive.3,13,14



Physiological Barriers References

1. Krebs-Smith SM, Reedy J, Bosire C. Healthfulness of

the U.S. food supply: Little improvement despite decades

of dietary guidance. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38:472-477.

2. Hill JO. Can a small-changes approach help address the

obesity epidemic? A report of the Joint Task Force of the

American Society for Nutrition Institute of Food

Technologists, and International Food Information Council.

Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;89:477-484.

3. Gailliot MT, Baumeister RF. The physiology of

willpower: Linking blood glucose to self-control. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2007;11:303-327.

4. Gailliot MT, Baumeister RF, DeWall CN, et al. Self-

control relies on glucose as a limited energy source:

Willpower is more than a metaphor. J Pers Soc Psychol.

2007;92:325-336.

5. Miller HC, Pattison KF, DeWall CN, Rayburn-Reeves R,

Zentall TR. Self-control without a "self"?: Common self-

control processes in humans and dogs. Psychol Sci. 2010;21:534-538.

6. Cohen D, Farley TA. Eating as an automatic behavior.

Prev Chronic Dis. 2008;5:A23.

7. Canadian Obesity Network. False hopes and

overwhelming urges. Conduit. 2009;Winter.

8. Polivy J, Herman CP, Deo R. Getting a bigger slice of

the pie. Effects on eating and emotion in restrained and

unrestrained eaters. Appetite. 2010;55:426-430.

9. Wilcox K, Vallen B, Block L, Fitzsimons GJ. Vicarious

goal fulfillment: When the mere presence of a healthy

option leads to an ironically indulgent decision. Journal of


10. Sela A, Berger J, Liu W. Variety, vice, and virtue: How

assortment size influences option choice. Journal of


11. Shmueli D, Prochaska JJ. Resisting tempting foods and

smoking behavior: Implications from a self-control theory

perspective. Health Psychol. 2009;28:300-306.

12. Chandon P, Wansink B. The biasing health halos of

fast-food restaurant health claims: Lower calorie estimates

and higher side-dish consumption intentions. Journal of


13. Keohane J. Fat profits: On the services of fast food chains. Portfolio.com. 2008 Accessed 3/10/2009.

14. Muraven M, Baumeister RF. Self-regulation and

depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a

muscle? Psychol Bull. 2000;126:247-259.



Is Eating an Addiction?

“A loss of control over food intake” fits the

description of classic substance abuse

disorders.1 As with drug abuse, people

continue to ‘use’ despite knowing about the

negative effects on their bodies, feeling the

negative physical consequences of use,

(e.g., pain or chronic disease), and

experiencing feelings of isolation due to the

stigma of being overweight or obese.1

Obesity and Addiction

Just as poppies and coca beans are

relatively harmless in their natural form, once

components are extracted, refined and

concentrated, they become potent drugs

such as cocaine and opium. Sugars and fats

are also found in nature in small

concentrations and like drugs, are not

addictive, until processed.1

Researchers have found that eating refined

grains (i.e., white flour), sugars, and fats

commonly found in processed food,

stimulate the dopamine system in the brain

similar to the reward pathway for drugs of

abuse.1-5

Obese individuals have fewer dopamine

receptors than lean people, (comparable for

drug users compared to non-users).6 Eating

foods that contain refined grains, fats and

sugars causes the loss of dopamine

receptors.7 The result of having fewer

dopamine receptors is that more substance

(i.e., food) is required to feel satisfied.2 This

promotes overeating and a preference for

processed, high-fat, high-sugar foods, which

increases the risk of developing obesity.

“I just need something sweet.”

The involvement of the dopamine reward

system may explain the desire to eat

something (e.g., dessert), even when no

longer hungry (e.g., after a big meal).

The addictive process is likely a key reason

that the majority of individuals have not been

able to control their intake of refined grains,

fats, and sugars. However, unlike other

addictive substances, foods containing

refined grains, fat and sugar are heavily

advertised, inexpensive and difficult to avoid.



Eating is an Addiction References

1. Ifland JR, Preuss HG, Marcus MT, et al. Refined food

addiction: A classic substance use disorder. Med

Hypotheses. 2009;72:518-526.

2. Mahapatra A. Overeating, obesity and dopamine

receptors. ACS Chemical Neuroscience. 2010;1:396-397.

3. Lutter M, Nestler EJ. Homeostatic and hedonic signals

interact in the regulation of food intake. J Nutr.

2009;139:629-632.

4. Avena NM, Rada P, Hoebel BG. Sugar and fat bingeing

have notable differences in addictive-like behavior. J Nutr.

2009;139:623-628.

5. Zheng H, Lenard NR, Shin AC, Berthoud HR. Appetite

control and energy balance regulation in the modern world:

Reward-driven brain overrides repletion signals. Int J Obes

(Lond). 2009;33 Suppl 2:S8-13.

6. Volkow ND, Wise RA. How can drug addiction help us

understand obesity? Nat Neurosci. 2005;8:555-560.

7. Stice E, Yokum S, Blum K, Bohon C. Weight gain is

associated with reduced striatal response to palatable food.

J Neurosci. 2010;30:13105-13109.

how the environment impacts individual choice health – rethinking healthy eating: examining the...

Documents