Health and Human Behaviour 2 (PSY1011/PSY7092) Past Paper PDF

PSY1011: Using Psychology in everyday life PSY7092: Application of Psychology in the real world Health and Human Behaviour 2 Focus on Eating Behaviour Dr Dagmar Corry You watched: Body Shock – half ton son: The case of 60st Billy What did Wh...

PSY1011: Using Psychology in everyday life PSY7092: Application of Psychology in the real world Health and Human Behaviour 2 Focus on Eating Behaviour Dr Dagmar Corry You watched: Body Shock – half ton son: The case of 60st Billy What did What would What are Whose you learn need to What is the factors behaviour from the happen to likely to at play contributes video about improve happen if concerning to Billy’s human Billy’s nothing Billy’s predicamen behaviour health long- changes? situation? t? and health? term? Nutrition and Health ‘You are what you eat.’ Water, carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins, and minerals – these make up the human body AND the food we eat. Contribute to cell’s metabolic processes (Holum, 1994; Peckenpaugh, 2007). Food also includes fibre (not used in metabolism) but needed for digestion. Increased use of processed foods has made our diets less healthy (additives to prolong shelf-life or enhance taste). Some can cause allergic reactions or be carcinogenic. Food Standards Agency Eat Well Guide With a healthful diet few people would need to supplement with vitamins and minerals. Too much of vitamins A and E, for example, can pose a serious health risk to liver and kidneys. Diets vary by gender and culture. Survey of 20,000 university students in 23 countries: women reported eating healthier diets (less fat and more fruit and fibre) than men in most countries, with national differences in dietary practices (Wardle et al., 2004). Why do people eat what they eat? Biopsychosocial factors (Peckenpaugh, Around 50% of children have 2007) Inborn processes stunted growth due to (newborns prefer malnutrition in countries such as sweet tastes) e.g., Ethiopia, Guatemala, and India (WHO, 2014). Brain chemicals (can bias people Regional and social to fatty foods, activating brain class differences in pleasure centres (Azar, 1994)) growth result from many factors, including Genetic factors (strongly affect genetics, nutrition, and perception of sweetness and disease. preferences for fruit, vegetables, and Ability to set goals, plan, protein (Fildes et al., 2014; Hwang et and monitor food al., 2015). consumption is linked to Environment & experience healthy diets. (availability of, and experience with, certain foods strongly affects preferences) Eating behaviour The most common factors contributing Most people Consequen In many to in the ces countries preventable modern dietary disease world eat Therefore, include excesses are burden are Overeating obesity, too much of understandi Under- the main related to : bingeing, diabetes, some things ng eating eating: nutritional both not overconsu cancer, and not behaviour is problem, eating fasting, enough of a priority for mption of eating especially in enough fruit others. health purging, developing and energy- disorders, Result: professional restrictive atherosclero vegetables dense malnutritio Eating is s and health eating sis, and being foods n, one of the researchers. hypertensio overweight biggest depression n, and or obese , early contributors cancer. (Australian death. to ill health. Institute of Health and Welfare, 2016). Eating behaviour Disorders of under-, and overeating are not opposites but can be seen as points on a spectrum of eating pathology. Most common type – binge eating disorder, often co-occurring or preceding obesity (Stice, Marti & Rohde, 2013). Unhealthy eating often associated with a very strong emphasis on body, weight, and appearance in terms of evaluating selfworth. Those who struggle with unhealthy eating are often distressed, and dissatisfied with their body, weight, and appearance. Attemps to lose weight are seen across the under- and over-eating spectrum. Eating behaviour - demographic differences Likelihood of experiencing some form of disordered eating varies dramatically depending on demographic differences. Younger women (15-25) are at particular risk of under-eating pathologies. Almost 90% experiencing body dissatisfaction. Only 10% of those experiencing an eating disorder are men (Smink et al., 2012) but gender disparity smaller for binge eating disorder and obesity. Nationality is powerful predictor of obesity risk. Prevalance ranging from 1.1% of adult population (Bangladesh) to 71.1% (Nauru; WHO, 2017a). Ethnic differences in young women Current models of eating behaviour Biological Model e.g., genetic make- up and metabolism. BUT genetic and Anorexia nervosa, Abnormalities in bulimia nervosa and Key benefit: help metabolic factors neuroendocrine obesity suggested identify individuals ALONE cannot function (serotonin to have genetic in a population provide a plausible basis in particular) were most at risk of explanation of (Ramachandrappa & found pre-dating engaging in obesity and other Farooqi, 2011; anorexia nervosa Trace, Baker, Penas- unhealthy eating forms of unhealthy (and persisting Liedo, & Bulik, behaviour. eating (Hill & after treatment) 2013). Several Melanson, 1999). genes regulating hormones like leptin and ghrelin are implicated in obesity The role of serotonin development (Kalra, Bagnasco, Otukonyong, Dube, & Kalra, 2003). Current models of eating behaviour Individual-difference models o Research focused on psychiatric disorders, i.e., departs from culturally expected or accepted behaviour, and causes significant distress or impaired functioning (APA, 2013). o Which characteristics distinguish those who eat unhealthily from the population? o A wide range of factors identified for under-eating, including perfectionism (Wade, Wiksch, Paxton, Byrne, & Austin, 2015), need for control (Vitousek & Manke,1994), and low self- esteem (Shea & Pritchard, 2007), with some research suggesting these characteristics were present prior to unhealthy eating. o Under-eating framed as maladaptive strategy to buffer negative effects of these personality traits.  Current models of eating behaviour Individual-difference models cont’d. o Separate set of psychological characteristics proposed for over-eating pathology, including impulsivity (Dawe & Loxton, 2004; Yeomans, Leitch, & Mobini, 2008), poor self- monitoring (Baker & Kirschenbaum, 1993), and emotional dysregulation (Cassin & van Ranson, 2005; Vitousek & Manke, 1994). o Models propose unhealthy food is rewarding in short term and suggest those who over-eat lack capacity to control urge to eat, especially with strong negative emotions present (Whiteside, Chen, Neighbors, Hunter, Lo, & Larimer, 2007). o Those with bulimia nervosa usually present with personality characteristics from both under-eating and over-eating eating disorder clusters. o Lack of stability of diagnoses over time shows no clear link between personality features and diagnostic categories. This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND Current models of eating behaviour Individual-difference models cont’d. o BUT research indicated robust associations between certain eating behaviours and personality variables. o Individual difference approach allows us to anticipate which individuals in a population are most likely to exhibit unhealthy eating behaviour. o Limited capacity to provide comprehensive explanation of unhealthy eating. Fail to explain variation over time in population rates or types. This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND Social cognitive models Three influential health psychology models have been applied to unhealthy eating behaviour, specifically over-eating pathology. They are the social cognitive theories and are used to understand and treat unhealthy eating behaviour. Each identifies factors contributing to unhealthy behaviour, and has been influential, with hundreds of publications and several applied interventions. o Theory of planned behaviour o Health belief model o Stages of change model (transtheoretical model) Problems with social cognitive models Low body satisfaction predicts weight gain over time even after controlling for initial Unhelpful in changing weight (Van den Berg & behaviours of people who Neumark-Sztainer, 2007; struggle most with Vartarian & Novak, 2011). unhealthy eating. Models Findings suggests Factors are broad and imply that cause of Desire to change one’s therefore hard to test problem lies mainly eating or appearance is empirically, and so within the individual, not necessary or theories are hard to implying that stigma sufficient for actual falsify. All three models directed at them is behaviour change. have been widely justified (Crandall, 1004; A more comprehensive criticised (e.g., Ogden, Crandall, Nierman, & Hebl, understanding of eating 2003, p. 424), not least 2009). Stigma and behaviour needs to fully because the cognitive blame are often encompass its social, aspects are directly harmful to contextual, and predominant, with the physical and mental environmental critical component being health. underpinnings (including individual responsibility cultural differences). Socio-cultural models It is reasoned that modern environments are obesogenic: Urban density and hyper- availability of (fast) food make weight gain almost inevitable (Swinburn, Egger, & Raza, 1999). From an evolutionary perspective, nourishing food has been scarce and difficult to obtain (Ulijaszek, 2002). A tendency to over-consumption is observed in almost all mammals when placed in a food-rich environment (Ulijaszek & Lofink, 2006). Agricultural revolution and technological innovation allow us to control food supply in much of the world. We can produce a great variety of foods in great quantities. Car ownership and similar have reduced people’s average calorie expenditure. Increase in obesity observed over the last century can broadly be attributed to changes in social environment which encourage higher calorie consumption and reducing the daily need for calorie expenditure (Dixon & Broom, 2007).  Socio-cultural models Rapid increase in portion sizes. Cultural shifts in food availability can impact significantly on eating behaviour and weight at population level. However, under-eating needs a different explanation. Affects mostly women (Hoek, 2006). Western developed countries hold thin ideal. Successful and attractive women are portrayed by media as unrealistically thin (Cusamano & Thompson, 1999). The dangerous ways ads see women Cultural ideals of beauty have shifted over the last 100 years to endorse thin-ness as necessary. Widespread use of digital alteration to make women appear thinner results in unrealistic ideal (Reaves, Bush Hitchon, Park, & Woong Yun, 2004). Unfavourable social comparison. Physical dimensions and BMI (=kg/sqm) of models in Playboy magazine (Seifen, 2005) and contestants in Miss America pageant (Wiseman, Gray, Mosimann, & Ahrens, 1992) tracked. Ideal weights often physiologically unattainable (Norton, Olds, Olive, and Dank, 1996) and dieting largely ineffective weight reduction strategy (Hill, 2004; Lowe & Timko, 2004); women may engage in increasingly harmful and extreme weight loss strategies. Socio-cultural models Link between exposure to thin ideal, increased body satisfaction, and under-eating pathology. Interaction with thin peer is sufficient to reduce women’s short-term body satisfaction (Krones et al., 2005). After exposure to Barbie dolls girls 5-8 years old have expressed more body dissatisfaction and a thinner ideal (Dittmar, Halliwell, & Ive, 2006). Cross-cultural research shows the spreading of under-eating pathology to new nations as they develop and become globalised (Makino, Tsuboi, & Dennerstein, 2004). E.g., Fijian girls’ risk of eating pathology more than doubled within three years following the widespread introduction of Western TV programmes (Becker at al., 2002). Socio-cultural explanations for unhealthy eating behaviour are useful in identifying variables responsible for macro-level differences in eating behaviour observed across time and demographic groups. It can help explain why women are more prone to undereating pathologies (thin ideal targets women), and why both men and women are prone to over-eating pathologies (equal exposure to obesogenic environment). Interactionist models Efforts to integrate across multiple levels of analysis. Interaction between individual level variables and environmental factors: epigenetic models have potential to identify relationship (e.g., Plagemann et al., 2009; Qi & Cho, 2008). Focus on variables that increase or decrease individual vulnerability to social influence so that gap between socio-cultural phenomena and individual behaviours can be bridged. Protective re internalised societal standards: e.g., high in self-determination, self- concept clarity, tendency to resist pressures to conform to social norms Risk factors: e.g., heightened sensitivity to food cues. Common feature of models: aim to identify features at individual level, e.g., confidence in one’s self-image, that protect from being influenced by cultural or environmental realities. Example: thin- ideal internalisation – informed efforts to take account of both the sociocultural and individual level determinants of disordered eating. Acknowledges that cultural standards and ideals re appearance do not influence all individuals equally. Strength: more nuanced – acknowledge the role of both individual level factors and social environment play in shaping behavioural outcomes. Social identity approach to eating Has capacity to integrate previously suggested models / levels of analysis and specify how these interact. Clarifies how societal norms, discrimination, or food environment structure the psychology of an individual and shape their eating behaviour. To illustrate: Obesity is defined in biological terms (BMI over 30). Range of variables predict accumulation of body fat, e.g., family history, particular genes (Barness et al., 2007). But biological factors are immutable and so unsuitable for intervention. Biological risk factors are expensive to monitor and so risk may only become clear at late stage, when disease process is already evident. Biological variables do not usually account for the majority of variance in obesity (Hill & Melanson, 1999). As such, researchers and health professionals turned to analysis at individual level (behavioural and psychological).  Note: risk factors at Social identity approach to eating socio- cultural level are at Particular focus of social least as identity powerful as approach is risk factors on at the Importantly, specifying individual or socio- Attention to processes biological cultural these much through levels models lack improves which Risk factors: (obesity can explanatory capacity for individuals e.g., be predicted framework intervention / represent saturated fat from thus have prevention in and intake, nationality, limited most health internalise physical socio- influence in conditions: features of inactivity, economic terms of here is where their social poor self- status, or intervention the work of environment control, level of s (e.g., how to clinical and (Turner & emotional education intervene health Oakes, 1997), dysregulation (Dixon & when risk of psychologists and model Broom, 2007; obesity is due has been very articulates the Dykes et al., to socio- influential. mechanisms 2004). BUT economic through which this is mostly status?). socio-cultural helpful in variables can terms of shape establishing individual aetiology behaviours.  Self- categorisations Fit Two interrelated psychological pathways Readine ss to use (Cruwys et al., 2016) Social context A systematic review by Cruwys et al., Body of Studies 2015) evidence now demonstrate surveyed 69 Social context Central tenet How social pr contains both indicates the that eating We are what studies (from of social interactive behaviour is we eat? Think 1974 onwards) ocesses affec stable (broad, identity t physical hea impact of probably ing about ide examining lth socio-cultural approach: all ntity, belongi social social always a realities) and perception ng, and exclu influence and identificatio reflection and sion through f dynamic is relative. eating n and social enactment of ood (fluid, Contextual behaviour to norms – identity (e.G., moment-to- information understand people only Berger & moment provides cues when and why conform to an heath, 2008; changes) to both social social eating norm berger & elements identities and influence when they rand, 2008; affects food against which social norms identify with cruwys et al., intake and we evaluate that are likely its source 2012; choice. ourselves, more or less (astrosm & guendelman, Conclusion; others, and relevant in rise, 2001; cheryan, & norms exert the world. any given louis et al., monin, 2011; a very situation 2007; white oyserman, powerful (Smith, Louis, et al., 2009). fryberg, & influence on & Tarrant, This is yoder, 2007). eating Social context Norms have been found to also influence Social norms shape the eating behaviour of both typical and young women at pathological eating. higher risk of eating disorders. Cruwy’s et al. (2015) The norms of a concluded that shared particular social group social identity is a with which a person moderator of the identifies are critical in powerful influence of predicting a person’s social norms on eating behaviour. behaviour. Group norms exert powerful influence Food consumption is over eating behaviour important way of living but are contingent on out valued identities eaters internalising the but (from a group membership psychological with those norms are perspective) identity is associated as part of moveable. Group based stigma Moralisation of eating behaviour has negative consequences, e.g., exacerbates low status position of obese people, and marginalising those who deviate from thin ideal. Overweight category often lumped together with obesity, by media, other commentators, and health researchers. Demonstrates the influence of cultural beauty standards, leading to stigmatisation of those whose body shape does not conform. Discrimination against obese is so severe as to be considered a significant contributor to eating pathology: People will seek to leave the low-status group using strategies of individual mobility, i.e., dieting, purging, exercise. Group based stigma cont’d. Successful weight loss stories in mainstream women’s entertainment and advertising mistakenly foster belief that weight is controllable and transitioning into a high-status ‘thin’ group is possible. However, many years of research show that most people only achieve a brief plateau in a longer trajectory of weight gain. Dieting at best ineffective, at worst actively counterproductive for weight loss (Lowe & Timko, 2004; Pressnell, Stice, & Tristan, 2008; Stice et al., 1999). Health at every size - a body acceptance movement allows people who are obese to draw on a range of identity resources giving them confidence to escape a vicious cycle of body dissatisfaction and dieting. There is evidence that this is beneficial for both the mental and physical health of the individual (Lewis et al., 2011). In closing … Eating, like all behaviour, is essentially a reflection of our social beings. Eating and social identity coalesce not only around pathology but also around festivology (e.g., Christmas, Thanksgiving, Ramadan; Fischler, 1988; Scholliers, 2001). What we eat determines what we are (Jean Brillat-Savarin, French gastronome) but who we are also determines what we eat. So unhealthy eating is not so much a sign of pathology in individuals but a sign of pathology in groups. We must turn to groups and group psychology to address the problems unhealthy eating creates for individuals and for society. The UK eating disorder charity BEAT The comorbidity of anxiety and eating disorders  Ogden, J. (2019). Eating Behaviour. In C. D. Llewellyn, S. Ayers, C. McManus, S. Newman, K. J. Petrie, T. A. Revenson, & J. Weinman (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Psychology, Health and Medicine (pp. 51– 54). chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Russell, A., Jansen, E., Burnett, A.J. et Some al. Children’s eating behaviours and related constructs: conceptual and theoretical foundations and their implications. Int J suggested Behav Nutr Phys Act 20, 19 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-023-01407- reading 3 Schnepper, R., Blechert, J., Arend, AK. et al. Emotional eating: elusive or evident? Integrating laboratory, psychometric and daily life measures. Eat Weight Disord 28, 74 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40519- 023-01606-8 Online Evaluation Survey 24/25 Check your QUB inbox for survey invite OR Link to QUB Student Survey Portal: https://qub.surveys.evasysplus.co.uk/ Click Login with your QUB account Click the named survey link to complete the evaluation CLICK THIS BUTTON THEN LOG IN WITH YOUR QUB STUDENT ACCOUNT