Astrid F. Junghans

Moralities in food and health research

Abstract Society has imposed strict rules about what constitutes a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ food and ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ eating behaviour at least since antiquity. Today, the moral discourse of what we should and should not eat is perhaps stronger than ever, and it informs consumers, researchers and policy-makers about what we all should consume, research and regulate. We propose four types of moralities, underlying sets of moral assumptions, that orient the contemporary discourses of food and health: the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ nature of food items, the virtue of self-control and moderation, the management of body size and the actions of market agents. We demonstrate how these moralities influence consumer behaviour as well as transformative research of food and health and develop a critical discussion of the impact of the underlying morality in each domain. We conclude by providing a few guidelines for changes in research questions, designs and methodologies for future research and call for a general reflection on the consequences of the uncovered moralities in research on food and health towards an inclusive view of food well-being.

Under consumers' scrutiny - an investigation into consumers' attitudes and concerns about nudging in the realm of health behavior.

BackgroundNudging strategies have recently attracted attention from scholars and policy makers for their potential in influencing people’s behaviors on large scales. But is the fact that nudges do not forbid any choice-options or significantly alter people’s economic incentives sufficient to conclude that nudges should be implemented? While this is discussed amongst scholars from various disciplines the voices of consumers, the target-group of nudges, remain unheard. Since understanding their knowledge about nudging and their opinions on being nudged are crucial for the evaluation of the moral appropriateness of nudging, the current study examines consumers’ knowledge of and attitudes toward nudging in general and the realm of health behavior.MethodsIn this qualitative investigation in-depth semi-structured interviews with UK consumers were conducted to examine consumers’ attitudes to four domains of inquiry around which the scholarly discussions about nudging have revolved: consumers’ approval of nudging, consumers’ views on the origin of nudges, consumers’ perceived effectiveness of nudging, and consumers’ concerns about manipulative aspects of nudging.ResultsInterviews revealed that consumers are largely unfamiliar with the concept of nudging altogether. Once defined and explained to them most consumers approve of the concept, especially in the realm of health behavior, given particular conditions: 1. Nudges should be designed for benefiting individuals and society; 2. consumers comprehend the decision-making context and the reasoning behind the promotion of the targeted behavior. Interviews revealed very limited concerns with manipulative aspects of nudges.ConclusionsThese findings call for better information-management to ensure consumers knowledge of nudges and awareness of their current implementation. Under that condition the findings encourage the implementation of nudges benefitting individuals and society in domains that consumers comprehend, such as health behaviors. Further research is required to clarify consumers’ concerns and requirements for nudges in more complex domains such as financial decisions and retirement plans.

Defying Food – How Distance Determines Monkeys’ Ability to Inhibit Reaching for Food

Objects, such as food, in the environment automatically activate and facilitate affordances, the possibilities for motoric movements in interaction with the objects. Previous research has shown that affordance activation is contingent upon the distance of the object with only proximal objects activating potential movements. However, the effect of affordance-activating proximal objects on the ability to inhibit movements has been unaddressed. The current study addressed this question with two experiments on long-tailed macaques. In both experiments monkeys were situated behind a Plexiglass screen that prevented direct access to food placed right behind the screen. The food could only be reached via a detour through one of two holes on the sides of the screen. It was assessed whether monkeys’ ability to inhibit the unsuccessful immediate reaching movement forward toward the food depended on the distance at which the food was presented. Results of both Experiments revealed that monkeys reached for the proximally positioned food significantly more than for the distally positioned food, despite this Plexiglass screen preventing successful obtainment of the food. The findings reveal the effect of proximal, affordance-activating objects on the ability to resist movements involved in interacting with the objects. Implications for humans, living in environments in which proximal, or accessible food is constantly available are discussed. The findings can contribute to an understanding of why resisting accessible food in the environment is often unsuccessful.

Eat me if you can: cognitive mechanisms underlying the distance effect.

Proximal objects provide affordances that activate the motor information involved in interacting with the objects. This effect has previously been shown for artifacts but not for natural objects, such as food. This study examined whether the sight of proximal food, compared to distant food activates eating-related information. In two experiments reaction times to verbal labels following the sight of proximal and distant objects (food and toys) were measured. Verbal labels included function words that were compatible with one object category (eating and playing) and observation words compatible with both object categories. The sight of food was expected to activate eating-related information when presented at proximity but not at distance, as reflected by faster reaction times to proximal than distant compatible eating words and no difference between reaction times to proximal and distant food for observation words (Experiment 1). Experiment 2 additionally compared the reaction times to wrapped and unwrapped food. The distance effect was expected to occur only for unwrapped food because only unwrapped food is readily edible. As expected, Experiment 1 and 2 revealed faster responses to compatible eating words at proximity than at distance. In Experiment 2 this distance effect occurred only for readily edible, unwrapped food but not for wrapped food. For observation words no difference in response times between the distances was found. These findings suggest that the sight of proximal food activates eating-related information, which could explain people’s differential behavioral responses to reachable versus distant food. The activation of eating-related information upon sight of accessible food could provide a cognition-based explanation for mindless eating.

How highlighted utensils influence consumption in a dark setting

Abstract Objective: Previous research has shown that people consume less food in the dark compared to normal vision conditions. While this effect is commonly attributed to increased attention to internal cues, it could also be caused by increased difficulty to maneuver in a dark setting. This study investigated this potential alternative explanation. Design: A 2 (dark versus normal vision setting) × 2 (highlighted versus non-highlighted utensils) between-subjects design was employed. Main outcome measures: Perceived difficulty of maneuvering and consumption of yoghurt were assessed as main outcome measures. Results: Participants consumed marginally less in dark compared to normal vision conditions, and experienced higher difficulty of maneuvering. Importantly, both effects were qualified by a significant interaction with highlighting, which increased consumption and reduced perceived difficulty compared to no highlights. Difficulty of maneuvering did not mediate the interactive effect of vision and highlighting on consumption. Conclusion: Difficulty to maneuver should be considered when investigating eating behaviour under dark conditions. In line with an embodied cognition account, results also reveal the necessity of visual information for interaction with objects in the environment and imply that detail-deprived object information may be sufficient for activation of the motor system.

Feeling bad or feeling good, does emotion affect your consumption of food? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence

HIGHLIGHTSA meta‐analysis assessed the effect of negative and positive emotions on eating.Several subgroups were included, e.g., (non) eating disordered individuals.Negative emotions increased eating in restrained eaters (medium effect).Positive emotions increased eating in general (small effect).Emotion induction, eating measures and age explained heterogeneity. ABSTRACT Whether emotions affect eating, and in whom, has remained unclear. This meta‐analysis assessed the effect of emotions on eating in both healthy and eating disordered individuals. Fifty‐six experimental studies investigating the causal effect of emotions on eating behavior were selected including 3670 participants. Separate meta‐analyses (random models) were performed for negative and positive emotions. Among healthy people the moderating impact of individual differences in restrained and emotional eating and of being overweight or obese was assessed for negative emotions. Results: Restrained eaters showed increased eating in response to negative emotions. Negative emotions did not affect eating in overweight or obese people, people with eating disorders or in self‐assessed emotional eaters. Positive emotion resulted in increased eating across groups. Heterogeneity was high and could be explained by differences in emotion induction procedures, eating measures, and age of participants. These findings indicate that particularly restrained eaters are vulnerable to emotion‐induced eating. Additional qualitatively good experiments are called for in combination with studies assessing emotion‐eating links in people’s naturalistic environment.

Citizen approval of nudging interventions promoting healthy eating: the role of intrusiveness and trustworthiness

BackgroundNudging interventions have lately been widely adopted by policy makers to increase the welfare of society and to help citizens make better choices. Hence, it has become important to understand the conditions under which they are approved. While most research has looked into whether professionals approve of nudging interventions, surprisingly the opinion of the target group has been widely ignored. This study investigated citizens’ level of approval of nudging in the realm of healthy eating promotion, as well as its boundary conditions.MethodsParticipants (N = 1441) from the US and seven European countries were probed for their level of approval of nudges. Moreover, we investigated whether these levels of approval were dependent on the level of intrusiveness of the nudge and on the type and trustworthiness of the source (policy makers, experts, industry) implementing the nudge.ResultsPeople revealed moderate to high levels of approval with nudging across all countries. Intrusiveness and nudging approval were negatively associated. Nudges implemented by experts received more approval than those by policy makers. In general, approval increased with the trustworthiness of the source.ConclusionsThese results provide information for European and American policy makers considering using nudging in their policy repertoire.