PSYC3331 Study Notes PDF

***Wk1: MODELS*** ***Term + Description/Definition*** *Model* **[Locus of Control (LoC)]** - Can be internal or external. - Beliefs about causes of particular outcomes. *Components* 1. **Internal LoC** - You have general control over outcomes. 2. **External LoC** - Outside forces...

***Wk1: MODELS*** ***Term + Description/Definition*** *Model* **[Locus of Control (LoC)]** - Can be internal or external. - Beliefs about causes of particular outcomes. *Components* 1. **Internal LoC** - You have general control over outcomes. 2. **External LoC** - Outside forces have control over outcomes. *Study* **Steptoe & Wardle 2001** - Study - LoC and exercise - More likely to engage in exercise with increased internal LoC, less likely for external LoC *Model* **[Self Efficacy Theory (SET)]** - Behaviour model pertaining to self efficacy, the perceived ability to carry out an action/task. - How successful you'll be given your abilities and unique situation. - Confidence in face of obstacles. - Need to understand the situation (e.g. running, but the road is icy). *Components* 1. **Past performance** - Previous experience with the action/task affects perceived ability to carry it out. - Shit past performance = decreased self-efficacy, vice versa. 2. **Vicarious experience** - Whether other people have done the action/task affects perceived ability to carry it out. - Others failed = decreased self-efficacy, vice versa. 3. **Social persuasian** - People's opinions about the action/task affects perceived ability to carry it out. - People negative about it = decreased self-efficacy, vice versa. 4. **Physiological/affective states** - Physiological and emotional reaction in anticipation of the action/task affects perceived ability to carry it out. - Feeling dread/jitters = decreased self-efficacy, vice versa. *Model* **[Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)]** - Premise is that underlying our behaviour is an intention to engage in the behaviour. - Intention precedes action. - Designed to understand the disconnect between peoples attitudes and their behaviours. - **2 front-end components:** 1. Attitude toward behaviour 2. Subjective norms. *Components* 1. **Attitude toward behaviour** - Front-end component of TRA - Influence of the subjective opinion about the behaviour -- is it good or bad to do? - E.g. is it important that I vote in this election? 2. **Subjective norms** - Front-end component of TRA - Influence of the opinions/actions of other people about the behaviour. - E.g. everyone around me is voting, they think it's good. *Model* **[Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)]** - Same as TRA, but also considers perceived behavioural control. - Our confidence in our ability to carry out an action will impact whether both the intention and the behaviour is formed. - E.g. quitting smoking - Attitude: I think this is bad for me - Subjective norms: none of my friends smoke - Perceived control: I have good willpower. - Successfully impacts intentions and behaviour. *Components* **Perceived behavioural control** - Component of TPB - Moderator between intent and behaviour in TPB - People high in perceived behavioural control are more likely to convert their intention to actual behaviour. - Recognises that people may not be confident in their ability to perform an action -- perceived barriers. *Model* **[Health Beliefs Model (HBM)]** - Behaviour model that tries to determine the likelihood/components of someone performing an action. - Does impact behaviour, but not through the mechanisms of perceived threat and outcome expectations. *Components* 1. **Perceived susceptibility** - Front-end component of HBM (1/4) - Contributes to perceived threat - How susceptible someone believes they will be to some outcome of the behaviour. - E.g. drink driving, belief they'll get in an accident. 2. **Perceived seriousness** - Front-end component of HBM (2/4) - Contributes to perceived threat - How serious someone believes the outcome of the behaviour could be. - E.g. drink driving, a minor or serious crash. **= PERCEIVED THREAT** - Middle component of HBM - Perceived threat involved in carrying out the behaviour. - Sum of perceived susceptibility + perceived seriousness. 3. **Perceived benefits** - Front-end component of HBM (3/4) - Contributes to outcome expectations - What benefit the person believes they could get from the behaviour. - E.g. drink driving, I'll get home quickly. 4. **Perceived barriers** - Front-end component of HBM (4/4) - Contributes to outcome expectations - What barriers does the person think could get in the way of carrying out the behaviour. - E.g. drink driving, I might get lost. **= OUTCOME EXPECTATIONS** - Middle component of HBM (2/2) - Perceived outcome of carrying out the behaviour. 1. **Perceived control** - Middle component added to HBM - As above. 2. **Cues to action** - Middle component added to HBM - Any sign, symbol or reminder prompting us to change our behaviour. - E.g. wet floor sign 3. **Health motivation** - Middle component added to HBM - Extent to which people want to change their behaviour. *Model* **[Transtheoretical Model (TTM])** - Behavioural model that describes various stages of our level of motivation/commitment to changing a behaviour. - Aka 'Stages of Change' model. - Not linear -- progress and relapse. *Stages of Change* 1. **Precontemplation** 2. **Contemplation** 3. **Preparation** Getting ready to change. 4. **Action** Engaging in change behaviours. 5. **Maintainence** Maintain change for 6 months. *Model* **[Implementation Intentions (II)]** - Informal model - Not a former model. - Idea that bridges gap between intention and behaviour. - Motivational phase vs volitional phase. - Distinguishes between vague intent to change and putting together an actual plan. - The *how* is important as well. - Contingency plans if plan A fails. - Steadmine & Quine 2004 -- testicular cancer checkup study. *Phases* 1. **Motivational phase** - Implementation intention phase - Motivated to change behaviour. - Vague. 2. **Volitional phase** - Implementation intention phase (2/2) - Specific plan about what, when and where. - "If X happens, I will do Y." **[Other factors]** - Factors influencing motivation to do or change behaviour. *Motivational factors* **Motivated reasoning** - Motivational factor - People are driven to use information in the world to suit their needs, whether or not it's accurate (bias). - Blanton & Gerrard 1997 -- prospective partner, STI and attractiveness study. **Self presentation** - Motivational factor - Desire to convey a particular impression to others. - Aimed to minimise cost and increase rewards. - E.g. tanning to be attractive, smoking to fit in, etc. *Learning factors* **Social learning/modeling** - Changing one's behaviour due to cues/observations of other people. - Bobo Clown Doll Study **Operant conditioning** - Conditioned behaviours associated with particular things. - E.g. drinking when sad -- urge to drink occurs when sad. *Economic factors* **Economic factors** - E.g. Individuals with lower SES and stressed people have more unhealthy behaviour. *Not on test* *Model* **[Health Action Process Approach ]** - Behavioural model that tries to incorporate everything. - Self efficacy + HBM + II + TTM **[Limitations of these models]** - They assume a degree of rationality in humans that is unrealistic. - Fail to account for many variables. - Intensions don't necessarily = behaviour. +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Wk2: STRESS*** | ***Term + | | | Description/Definition*** | +===================================+===================================+ | ***Topic*** | **[Stress as a | | | STIMULUS]** | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Trauma*** | **[Trauma]** | | | | | | - Traumatic event = exposure to | | | actual or threatened death, | | | actual or threatened serious | | | injury or sexual violence. | | | | | | - Direct and indirect exposure | | | | | | **Impact of trauma on health** | | | | | | - Multiple (compound traumas), | | | every exposure to a new event | | | increases risk for MH/PH | | | (Dose-response relationship). | | | | | | - Chicago Longitudinal Study -- | | | diversity of samples | | | | | | - Pops with high exposure to | | | trauma = more PTSD | | | | | | | | | | | | - Homeless -- 27%, lifetime 79% | | | | | | - First Nations -- 19--55% | | | lifetime (AUS), 28 -- 56% | | | (US) | | | | | | - Refugees & Asylum Seekers -- | | | 31% | | | | | | - General population -- 3-5% | | | | | | **Interactions between | | | categories/stressful events** | | | | | | - Trauma interaction with daily | | | stressors significantly | | | affect MH/PH | | | | | | - Causes more daily stressors, | | | leading to poor MH | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Chronic vs acute stressors*** | **Physiological Effects of | | | Chronic vs Acute Stressors** | | | | | | - **Acute** | | | | | | | | | | | | - Poorer general PH, quality of | | | life | | | | | | - Higher all cause mortality | | | | | | - Increased pain/disability | | | | | | - More cumulative psychiatric | | | disorders | | | | | | | | | | | | - **Chronic** | | | | | | - Lower cancer survival | | | rate | | | | | | - Poorer cardiac health | | | | | | - Age related diseases e.g. | | | dementia | | | | | | - Psychological disorders | | | e.g. PTSD, depression | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Topic*** | **[Stress as a | | | PROCESS]** | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Transactional Model of | A diagram of a stressful | | Stress*** | situation Description | | | automatically generated | | | | | | - Proposes there is a potential | | | stressor and appraisal of the | | | stressor | | | | | | - **Primary appraisal** -- is | | | it irrelevant, benign, or | | | stressful? | | | | | | If stressful, | | | | | | | | | | | | - **Secondary appraisal** -- | | | can I manage this or not? If | | | yes, **coping**. If no, | | | **stress**. | | | | | | | | | | | | - E.g. social media -- | | | perceived as a resource, it | | | is a buffer (Stree-Buffer | | | Hypothesis). | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Factors that influence | **[Situational | | appraisal - SITUATIONAL*** | Characteristics]** | | | | | | - Uncertainty | | | | | | - Timing | | | | | | - Controllability | | | | | | **Uncertainty** | | | | | | - 12000 Chinese Student Study | | | | | | - Worse for MH than life and | | | study stress | | | | | | - strongly associated with | | | unintentional injury | | | | | | - UK refugees VISA insecurity | | | | | | - Had direct and mediating | | | effect -- changing living | | | circumstances as well as | | | PTSD/depression levels | | | | | | - Chronic stress and | | | Uncertainty Model: proposes | | | that to understand chronic | | | stress response it is viewed | | | as generalised uncertainty. | | | Means stress response will be | | | prolonged from initial | | | stimulus. | | | | | |  | | | | | | - Proposes some are more likely | | | to appraise a situation as | | | stressful when under | | | generalised uncertainty. | | | | | | **Timing** | | | | | | - Events occur earlier or later | | | than expected e.g. death of a | | | child | | | | | | - Compounding events e.g. sick | | | during exams | | | | | | - Developmental stage of stress | | | exposure | | | | | | **Controllability** | | | | | | - How controllable a situation | | | is (objective vs perceived). | | | | | | | | | | | | - Perception of controllability | | | influence coping. | | | | | | - If stressor perceived as | | | controllable, more likely to | | | adopt problem-focused | | | compared to emotion-focused | | | coping strat. | | | | | | | | | | | | - Controllability and the | | | related coping strat are | | | influenced by causal | | | attribution. | | | | | | - If I attribute the cause to | | | the self then problem-focused | | | coping more likely (vs | | | avoidant coping for unknown | | | causes). | | | | | | - Can exert control in | | | different ways: | | | | | | | | | | | | - **Personal control** -- | | | decisions to produce | | | desirable outcomes | | | | | | - **Behavioural control** -- | | | concrete action to reduce | | | impact of stressor | | | | | | - **Cognitive control** -- | | | thought processes to modify | | | impact of stressor -- more | | | effective in low control | | | environments | | | | | | | | | | | | - If perceived to have control, | | | protective against trauma | | | stress in torture survivors. | | | | | | | | | | | | - Yugoslavia and asylum seekers | | | in Switzerland studies. | | | | | | - Perceived controllability | | | more strongly related to PTSD | | | than severity of torture. | | | | | | | | | | | | - Controllability associated | | | with avoidance in PTSD | | | | | | | | | | | | - 145 Women PTSD Study -- | | | disturbing images on screen, | | | letting them choose when they | | | could change the pic read the | | | disturbing story quick | | | | | | **\ | | | Social factors (cultural | | | expectations)** | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Factors that influence | **[Individual | | appraisal - INDIVIDUAL*** | Characteristics]** | | | | | | 1. Self efficacy | | | | | | 2. Personality traits | | | | | | 3. Capabilities | | | | | | **Self Efficacy** | | | | | | - Perceived ability to organise | | | thoughts/behaviours to cope | | | with ambiguous/stressful | | | situations | | | | | | | | | | | | - Bandura 1977, O'Leary 1972 | | | Study -- hand in cold water. | | | Either given cognitive pain | | | control intervention, placebo | | | analgesicno or no | | | instruction. Cognitive worked | | | best by far. | | | | | | | | | | | | - Better health/quality of life | | | with various diseases and | | | cancer. | | | | | | - Associated with wellbeing in | | | students (e.g. 1500 Spanish | | | students study) | | | | | | **Personality Traits** | | | | | | - Can impact primary and | | | secondary appraisals. | | | | | | - **Self esteem** -- whether | | | event appraised as challenge | | | vs threat. | | | | | | - **Motivation** -- whether | | | event appraised as harmful or | | | a challenge (if in pursuit of | | | a goal). | | | | | | - **Belief system or cultural | | | values** -- what do we find | | | stressful. | | | | | | - **Hardiness and optimism** -- | | | recognising internal | | | resources to cope. | | | | | | - **Personality types --** not | | | relevant besides Type D. | | | | | | **Capabilities (e.g. experience | | | with stress management)** | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Topic*** | **[Stress as a | | | RESPONSE]** | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Biological stress response*** | A diagram of a diagram | | | Description automatically | | | generated | | | | | |  | | | | | | A diagram of a clock Description | | | automatically generated | | | | | |  | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Stress-response models*** | **[Hans Selye's General | | | Adaptation | | | Syndrome]** | | | | | | 1. Good health (homeostasis) | | | | | | 2. Initial alarm stage | | | | | | 3. Resistance stage | | | | | | 4. Exhaustion stage | | | (breakdown/burnout | | | | | | A diagram of a diagram | | | Description automatically | | | generated | | | | | | **[Stress as Allostatic Load -- | | | McEwen 2007]** | | | | | | Argues that there isn't a chance | | | to recover (or high allostatic | | | load) when: | | | | | | 1. Repeated hits from multiple | | | or chronic stressors. | | | | | | 2. Poor adaptation to repeated | | | stressors = sustained stress, | | | no adjustment. | | | | | | 3. No recovery following stress | | | exposure -- maintained high | | | physiological response. | | | | | | 4. Unable to respond effectively | | | to stressors in the first | | | place -- e.g. bad genetics. | | | | | | These ideas are broadly part of | | | the **Diathesis Stress Models** | | | | | |  | | | | | | - Where a vulnerable person is | | | no more likely to have a | | | negative outcome than a | | | resilient person, BUT when | | | experiencing stress you are | | | much more likely to have | | | negative outcomes physically | | | and mentally. | | | | | | - Dose-response relationship to | | | the amount of stress and | | | predisposition for disorder, | | | and whether the disorder | | | manifests or not. | | | | | | **Pathways between stress and | | | health** | | | | | | A diagram of a diagram | | | Description automatically | | | generated | | | | | | - If you have a stressful | | | event, leads to physiological | | | processes firing up. Leads to | | | an impact on the immune | | | system, making you more prone | | | to experiencing illness and | | | unhealthy behaviours, which | | | can then lead to poorer | | | immune functioning. | | | Compounded. | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Pathways between stress and | **Stress and immune system | | health*** | reactivity** | | | | | | - Acute and chronic stress | | | suppress immune system | | | function, inflammation | | | leading to health issues: | | | | | | - Cytokines: chemicals | | | released by immune system | | | and communicate with | | | nervous system \> feeling | | | sick, glum, fatigue etc. | | | | | | - May be key link between | | | immune and nervous | | | system. | | | | | | - Can affect healing rates: | | | | | | - Physical wound took 40% | | | longer to heal during | | | exam period. | | | | | | - Positive affect appears to | | | have a buffering effect on | | | impact of stress on | | | inflammation. | | | | | | - Associations between | | | affective states and | | | inflammation are complex, | | | timing of affect and | | | inflammation measurement are | | | important. | | | | | | - Prelim evidence that greater | | | emodiversity is associated | | | with lower markers of | | | inflammation. | | | | | |  | | | | | | - More likely to develop flu, | | | cold. | | | | | | | | | | | | - Duration of stressor -- | | | chronic stressors \> 1 month | | | increased risk for colds. | | | | | | | | | | | | - Can weaken strength of | | | vaccination response. | | | | | | - Influence progression of | | | diseases. | | | | | | - Can predict symptom outbreaks | | | and treatment success. | | | | | | **Cardiovascular Disease** | | | | | | - High heart rate, blood | | | pressure, CVD | | | | | | - Stress causes increased: | | | | | | - Platelets and clotting | | | factors in blood \> | | | stroke risk | | | | | | - Blood cholesterol \> | | | stroke risk | | | | | | - Atherosclerosis | | | (thickening arteries) \> | | | due to repeated SNS | | | activation | | | | | | - Rigid/low heart rate | | | variability (and poor | | | emotion regulation and | | | MH) | | | | | | | | | | | | - Contributes to CVD via: | | | | | | - Increased inflammatory | | | markers, stress hormones, | | | CV reactivity | | | | | | - Cardiac arrhythmia | | | | | | - Poor lifestyle choices | | | (indirect) | | | | | | **Type D -- Distressed | | | Personality Type** | | | | | | - Increased risk for illness | | | | | | - 1 in 4 coronary heart | | | disease patients are Type | | | D | | | | | | - Part of the European | | | Cardiovascular prevention | | | guidelines to screen risk | | | | | | **Stress and cancer** | | | | | | A diagram of the human body | | | Description automatically | | | generated | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Measuring Stress*** | **Physiological** | | | | | | - Hormones | | | | | | - Skin response | | | | | | - Heart rate | | | | | | - Blood pressure | | | | | | **Self reported stress** | | | | | | - Measure exposure to stressors | | | and perceived stress response | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Stress and coping*** | **Coping: process by which people | | | try to manage the perceived | | | discrepancy between the demands | | | of a situation and the resources | | | available to them** | | | | | | - Problem focused -- direct | | | action, reduce demands of the | | | stress or increase resources | | | | | | - Emotion focused -- adjust | | | perception of risk or | | | emotional reactions via | | | cognitive strategies | | | | | | - Avoidant focused -- | | | denying/ignoring problem. | | | Sometimes effective short | | | term, not long. | | | | | |  | | | | | | **Emotion focused coping strat** | | | | | | - Hundreds | | | | | | - Many known as | | | emotion-regulation strats | | | | | | - Incl cognitive | | | reappraisal, acceptance, | | | suppression, avoidance, | | | rumination | | | | | | - Some adaptive, some | | | maladaptive | | | | | | - Strong association between | | | habitual ER strategy use and | | | MH/PH (via inflammation) | | | | | | **Social Support** | | | | | | Coping through social support | | | | | | - Instrumental | | | | | | - Emotional | | | | | | - Informational | | | | | | - Companionship | | | | | | - Attachment | | | | | | Buffering hypothesis of social | | | support (SP) | | | | | | - SP protects against negative | | | effects of high stress | | | (little effect in low stress) | | | | | | - Changes primary appraisal | | | | | | - Enhances coping (secondary | | | appraisal) -- social | | | resources to cope | | | | | | Direct effects hypothesis DEH | | | | | | - Argues SP has benefits for | | | health regardless of the | | | level of stress | | | | | | - Builds self esteem/belonging | | | | | | - Health benefits | | | independent of stress | | | | | | - Can lead to healthier | | | lifestyle | | | | | | - Harmful effects of lack of SP | | | | | | - Ongoing loneliness \> CVD | | | risk | | | | | | EVIDENCE FOR DEH | | | | | | - Social ties and | | | susceptability to a cold | | | | | | - 276 healthy volunteers | | | exposed to rhinovirus | | | | | | - Social ties = did better | | | | | | **Cultural differences** | | | | | | - Collectivistic cultures | | | prefer social harmony and | | | reduce impact of personal | | | stress on others | | | | | | - Individualistic cultures | | | share the burden of stressful | | | circumstances for personal | | | benefit. | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Stress management*** | **What doesn't work:** | | | | | | - "Just stop worrying" -- | | | thought intrusion, white bear | | | -- Wegner | | | | | | - Avoidance, distraction, and | | | numbing | | | | | | - Anti anxiety meds | | | | | | - Benzos -- reduce anxiety, | | | panic, insomnia | | | | | | - Beta blockers -- reduce | | | arousal, not stress | | | | | | **What does work:** | | | | | | - Cognitive restructuring | | | | | | - Target cognition: I will | | | fail my exam. | | | | | | - Evidence for: didn't | | | study enough, lots of | | | material, grades are bad | | | | | | - Evidence against: haven't | | | failed before, passed | | | everything so far | | | | | | - Resultant alternative | | | cognition: even if I | | | don't do as well as hoped | | | I will still likely pass | | | | | | - Guided problem solving to aid | | | problem-focused coping | | | | | | | | | | | | - Guided muscle relaxation | | | | | | - Systemic | | | tensing/relaxation of | | | muscle groups | | | | | | - Increase awareness of | | | muscle tension | | | | | | - Decreased | | | pain/fatigue/stress & | | | anxiety | | | | | | - Improved sleep, | | | quality of life | | | | | | - | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Wk3: OBESITY*** | ***Term + | | | Description/Definition*** | +===================================+===================================+ | ***Topic*** | **OBESITY** | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Obesity and BMI*** | **Defining Obesity:** | | | | | | - BMI -- weight in kg divided | | | by height in m2 | | | | | | - This is because taller people | | | should be heavier | | | | | | **BMI ranges:** | | | | | | - Healthy: 18.5 to 24.9 | | | | | | - Overweight: 25 to 29.9 | | | | | | - Obese: 30+ | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Consequences of obesity*** | **Consequences:** | | | | | | - Not many experiments done, no | | | causal data | | | | | | - We track people over time | | | | | | - Heart disease | | | | | | - Type 2 diabetes | | | | | | - High blood pressure | | | | | | No strong evidence for negative | | | outcomes in the overweight BMI | | | range. | | | | | | **Cardiometabolic health and | | | BMI:** | | | | | | - Overweight group similar to | | | normal weight for | | | cardiometabolic health | | | | | | **Weight loss benefits?** | | | | | | - Intentional weight loss for | | | normal/ow category increases | | | risk of death | | | | | | - Decreases risk for obese & | | | unhealthy | | | | | | - No impact for obese & healthy | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Social consequences of | **Weight bias:** | | obseity*** | | | | - In education | | | | | | - Less likely to be | | | accepted to uni | | | | | | - Less family support | | | | | | - Exclusion | | | | | | | | | | | | - Bias in employment | | | | | | - Hiring | | | | | | - Lower wages | | | | | | - Less likely promotion | | | | | | - More likely | | | terminated | | | | | | - Bias in health care | | | professionals | | | | | | - Anne Milton -- UK | | | public health problem | | | | | | - Call people fat | | | | | | - Bad -- bad for | | | classification | | | | | | - People actually | | | prefer being | | | called fat to | | | obese | | | | | | - Impact on health care | | | utilisation? Less | | | likely to attend for | | | screenings | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Weight stigma*** | **Behavioural consequences:** | | | | | | - Stigma associated with eating | | | disordered behaviour | | | | | | - Weight gain over time | | | | | | - Avoiding exercise | | | | | | **Psychological consequences** | | | | | | - Negative affect | | | | | | - Low self esteem | | | | | | - Body satisfaction | | | | | | **Stress of obesity stigma:** | | | | | | - Obesity stigma = stressor | | | | | | - Indirect pathway = more | | | unhealthy behaviours to cope | | | with stress | | | | | | - Direct pathway = stress has | | | neurobiological impacts | | | | | | - Cortisol increases | | | cravings for fatty foods | | | and abdominal fat gain | | | | | | - Negative health outcomes =. | | | Blood pressure? Cardio? | | | | | | - Self report study -- BMI | | | and health outcomes | | | explained by weight | | | stigma XP (Hunger and | | | Major 2015) | | | | | | **Are attitudes getting better or | | | worse?** | | | | | | - 1961 -- obese kid ranked | | | worst | | | | | | - 2001 -- ranked even worse | | | | | | **Causes of weight stigma** | | | | | | - Belief that body weight is | | | controllable | | | | | | - Telling people genetics | | | are at fault -- no impact | | | | | | - Telling people its from | | | poor choices -- attitudes | | | made worse | | | | | | - **Pro effort bias** -- people | | | think at least trying is good | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Causes of obesity*** | **Genetic contribution** | | | | | | - 0.6 (60%) to 0.85 (85%) due | | | to genetic factors | | | | | | - Metabolism | | | | | | - Set point theory | | | | | | **Energy intake** | | | | | | - Food availability | | | | | | | | | | | | - Schacters's externality | | | hypothesis - SOMEWHAT | | | OVERSTATED | | | | | | - Non obese people eat | | | according to internal | | | cues | | | | | | - Obese people eat | | | according to external | | | cues | | | | | | - Fat people eat more | | | for preferred food | | | but less than non | | | obese for non | | | preferred | | | | | | - Impacted by taste | | | | | | **Portion size increases** | | | | | | - Wansink study -- portion | | | sizes | | | | | | - Bottomless bowls of soup | | | vs 1 bowl -- visual cues | | | | | | - People ate more when soup | | | level didn't go down by | | | 72% | | | | | | - Thought they ate the same | | | amount as normal bowl | | | | | | - Increases amount that people | | | eat | | | | | | - 3yo don't show portion size | | | effect, do later | | | | | | - Not ingrained at birth | | | | | | - Popcorn study in theatre | | | | | | - Manipulated size and | | | taste | | | | | | - Large bucket ate more | | | even when stale | | | | | | - Are PSE's? sustained over | | | time | | | | | | - Rolls study -- people | | | keep eating more and not | | | compensating | | | | | | - Free lunch study -- | | | control and big lunch | | | study both gained weight | | | | | | - Are overweight people just | | | more reactive to bigger | | | portions? | | | | | | | | | | | | - Herman Study separated | | | external cues into | | | | | | 1. Sensory -- says smth about | | | the food itself | | | | | | 2. Normative -- says how we | | | should behave | | | | | | i. Smaller plates to eat | | | less? | | | | | | 1. Delboeuf illusion -- | | | smaller plate gimmick | | | makes food looks | | | bigger | | | | | | 2. DOESN'T MATTER | | | | | | 3. It's about how much | | | food is available | | | | | | 4. The studies let you | | | get more food so its | | | not great | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Wk 4: DIET*** | ***Term + | | | Description/Definition*** | +===================================+===================================+ | ***Topic*** | **EXERCISE** | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Exercise*** | Mindset and exercise | | | | | | - Hotel staff study | | | | | | - Perceived they were doing | | | more exercise when told they | | | were during work | | | | | | - BMI and everything else | | | dropped, despite no changed | | | behaviour | | | | | | - More subtle changes? | | | Healthier mindset? | | | Unconscious stuff. | | | | | | Maybe we don't account for | | | exercise done in day to day | | | tasks. | | | | | | Exercising on its own not best | | | for weight loss, but good for | | | maintaining it. | | | | | | Possible to be fat and fit? | | | | | | - Weight unimportant for risk | | | of death | | | | | | - Fitness more important than | | | weight | | | | | | Reducing energy intake | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Diet*** | The 'Diet' | | | | | | Why do diets fail? | | | | | | Restrained eating | | | | | | - Restricted intake followed by | | | disinhibition | | | | | | - The 'what the hell' effect | | | | | | Study -- give preload (taste | | | test) | | | | | | Preload is a forbidden food for | | | most dieters e.g. cake | | | | | | Control gets nothing or water or | | | something | | | | | | Taste test then done on more good | | | shit | | | | | | For restrained dieters they will | | | eat more of the good shit after | | | lit preload | | | | | | Control condition eats minimally | | | because diet still intact from | | | shit preload | | | | | | Is it taste or perception of the | | | food? | | | | | | If told the food was high fat | | | they then indulged (diet | | | perceived as broken) | | | | | | More important what we think | | | about the food | | | | | | 'I'll start my diet tomorrow' | | | study | | | | | | People told they were starting | | | diet tomorrow ate way more food | | | in preparation | | | | | | Shows dieters eat less than they | | | want to -- restriction is fragile | | | | | | Boundary model for regulation of | | | eating (theoretical) | | | | | | - Unrestrained eaters | | | | | | - Zones -- hunger or satiety | | | | | | - Zone between these is | | | biological indifference | | | | | | - Unrestrained eaters -- more | | | food in preload makes people | | | closer to satiety already, so | | | less then eaten | | | | | | - Restrained eaters -- opposite | | | | | | - Hunger and satiety boundaries | | | for dieters is stretched out. | | | | | | - New boundary added -- self | | | imposed limit for 'diet' | | | | | |  | | | | | | - With the above, when preload | | | exceeds diet boundary, dieter | | | now free to continue to | | | satiety, which has been | | | pushed out so more capacity | | | for overeating. | | | | | | - | | | | | | Diets fail | | | | | | - Long term failure | | | | | | - Hunger, deprivation, craving | | | | | | - Unrealistic expectations | | | | | | - False-hope syndrome: | | | unrealistic goal, achieve | | | some initial success, | | | inevitable failure, then | | | interpretation. | | | | | |  | | | | | | - Lower metabolism | | | | | | Solution | | | | | | - Stop talking about weight, be | | | healthier | | | | | | - Shifting the balance -- small | | | changes | | | | | | Navigating the food environment | | | | | | - Marketing | | | | | | - Portions | | | | | | - Drinks vs foods | | | | | | - Perception of what you're | | | consuming, e.g. coffee is | | | fine but it actually has 500 | | | cals, no other changes made | | | around it. | | | | | | - Nutrition labels -- low fat | | | scam. People eat more low fat | | | stuff than non fat while not | | | perceiving the difference. | | | | | | - Menu labelling | | | | | | - Health star rating is based | | | on intended preparation -- | | | e.g. milo tiny serve fine, | | | big serve is fkn shit | | | | | | Social influences on food intake | | | | | | 1. Modelling | | | | | | - Eat more with other people | | | who eat a lot | | | | | | - Social cue wins out over | | | hunger | | | | | | 2. Social facilitation | | | | | | - Food intake goes up relative | | | to amount of people around | | | you | | | | | | - Occurs regardless of context | | | | | | - Social pre-cilitation -- food | | | in preparation of social | | | event | | | | | | - They eat more when they're | | | gonna eat with someone | | | | | | Theory of normal eating | | | | | | - We eat as much as we can | | | until something tells us to | | | stop | | | | | | - Argues external cues like | | | social stuff gives an upper | | | limit for intake | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Social consequences of | | | obseity*** | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Weight stigma*** | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Causes of obesity*** | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | ***WEEK 5: RISKY BEHAVIOURS*** | +=======================================================================+ | **Smoking** | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | - Men smoke more than women | | | | - 70% of men smokers in 1945 | | | | - 12% in 2019 | | | | **Why smoke?** | | | | 1. Sociocultural factors | | | | - Urberg et al 1990 | | | | - Descriptive norm vs injunctive norms | | | | - Descriptive = what we see other people actually doing | | | | - Injunctive = perceptions of what other people approve of | | | | - Representation in media | | | | - More exposure normalises the behaviour | | | | - Film study -- correlation between exposure and likelihood of | | smoking | | | | 2. Reinforcement | | | | - Relaxing effects | | | | - Shock toleration study | |