1. Orientation Toward Food Planning Matters: An Investigation into the Role of Approach and Avoidance Food Planning as Mediators of the
Relationships between Motivational Orientations and Healthy and Unhealthy Eating
Kheana Barbeau, Camille Guertin, & Luc Pelletier
University of Ottawa
Introduction Methods
Discussion and Implications
Results
Participants
The sample composed of 290 female undergraduate students from the University of Ottawa who were between the ages of 17 and 60
(M = 20, SD = 4.3) with an average weight of 60 kg. (SD = 10.9 kg.). According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention
guidelines for BMI categories, most of the participants were underweight (n = 184, 63%), some were of healthy weight (n = 97,
33%), and a minority were considered overweight (n = 5, 1.7%) or obese (n = 4, 1.4%). Most participants thought that it was
important to follow a healthy diet and to engage in weight management activities (n = 99, 34%), and thought it was very important to
control their body weight (n = 94, 32%).
Discussion
• Overall, my hypotheses were supported; however, approach food planning was, to a lesser extent, associated with unhealthy
eating
• Women who were self-determined toward their eating use more process-focused methods for planning their eating, while women
who were non-self-determined toward their eating used more outcome-focused methods and food avoidance and restriction
strategies.
• The preliminary analysis suggested that approach and avoidance food planning are positively correlated, which means that
individuals tend to adopt more than one orientation, but tend to use one more than the other
• Since approach food planning predicts both types of eating behaviors, it is plausible that individuals need to use more than one
orientation toward food planning to have a healthy diet
• Furthermore, using both types of food planning orientations may lead to extinguishing unhealthy eating behaviors, while
adopting healthier eating behaviors
Future Directions
• To expand this model by examining alternative mediating variables between regulatory styles and eating behaviors that could
also be related to food planning orientations (e.g., keeping food records, weighing oneself, creating a diet and exercise plan, etc.)
(Otis & Pelletier, 2008)
• To conduct a longitudinal study to help further explain how individuals adopt healthy eating behaviors or unhealthy eating
behaviors throughout time (e.g., the use of different orientations throughout stages of change)
• To examine how some types of health communication, such as “positive self-talk” or fat talk, are associated with these different
types of food planning
Background
• In Self-determination Theory, recent studies have revealed that women have distinct regulatory styles (autonomous versus
controlled) that are either associated with healthy eating or dysfunctional eating (Pelletier & Dion, 2007)
• A possible mechanism that can better explain how these regulatory styles lead to healthy versus unhealthy eating is to examine
the types of planning women use to regulate their eating
• In general, research supports that detailed food planning is associated with a higher consumption of fruits and vegetables and a
reduction in dietary fat intake (Adriaanse, Vinkers, De Ridder, Hox, & De Wit, 2011)
• Lack of food planning and food restriction have been shown to lead to heightened preoccupation of restricted foods, and
consequently result in ironic rebound effects (Otis & Pelletier, 2008; Andriaanse, van Oosten, De Ridder, & Evers, 2011)
Regulatory Styles for Eating
Objectives
• The goal of this study is to explore the respective role of food planning orientations (approach versus avoidance) in relation to
regulatory styles and eating behaviors to further explain the adoption of healthy and unhealthy eating behaviors
• To replicate the findings of Otis and Pelletier (2008), where food planning orientations play a mediating role between motivation
for eating regulation and eating behaviors
• To expand the model proposed by Otis and Pelletier (2008) by examining the relationships between food planning orientations and
unhealthy eating behaviors
Hypotheses
(1) Approach food planning would be associated with healthy eating behaviors and would not be associated with unhealthy eating
behaviors, while avoidance food planning would be associated with unhealthy eating behaviors and would not be associated with
healthy eating behaviors.
(2) SDM for eating regulation would be associated with approach food planning and would not be associated with avoidance food
planning, while NSDM for eating regulation would be associated with avoidance food planning and would not be associated with
approach food planning.
-
+
Objectives and Hypotheses
Figure 1. Structural equation modeling was conducted through Mplus. The following figure demonstrates the relationships between motivation for
eating regulation, food planning orientation, and healthy and unhealthy eating behaviors.
-.35**
.21**
-.20**
.68**
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. SDM for Eating
Regulation
5.04 1.13 - -.09 .68** .28** .38** -.20**
2. NSDM for Eating
Regulation
2.93 0.99 - - .00 .41** -.13* .15*
3. Approach Food
Planning
4.80 1.14 - - - .52** .34** -.06
4. Avoidance Food
Planning
4.16 1.33 - - - - .04 -.11
5. Healthy Eating
51.97 13.40 - - - - - .32**
6. Unhealthy Eating
17.80 10.28 - - - - - -
Procedure
Participants were recruited through the Integrated System of Participation in Research, in which each student was allocated one point
for participating in an online questionnaire. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire based on nutrition and weight
management.
Measures
The following measures included the Regulation of Eating Behaviours Scale (REBS; Pelletier, Dion, Slovinec-D’Angelo, & Reid,
2004), which measured the different reasons for which individuals might try to regulate their eating behaviors; the Planning of Eating
Behaviors Scale (PEBS; Otis & Pelletier, 2008), which measured the extent to which individuals used more approach or avoidance
strategies to regulate their eating; and the Healthy Eating Habits Scale (HEHS; Otis & Pelletier, 2008), which measured individuals’
diet adherence to Canada’s Food Guide recommendations.
Plan for Analyses
Structural equation modeling was used to examine the direction of the relationships between the variables of interest and to examine
the mediating role of food approach orientation between motivation for eating regulation and eating behaviors.
Variable Frequency Percent
Gender
Female 290 100
Age
18-25 278 96
26-35 7 2.5
36+ 5 1.5
Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic White or European American 181 62
Afro-Caribbean or African American 17 6
Latino or Hispanic American 5 2
East Asian or Asian American 28 10
South Asian or Indian American 8 3
Middle Eastern or Arab American 23 8
Native American or Alaskan Native 2 1
Other 24 8
Prefer Not To Say 2 1
BMI
Underweight (18.5 and under) 184 63
Normal Weight (18.5- 25) 97 33
Overweight (25-30) 5 2
Obese (30+) 4 1
Table 1. Frequencies and percentages of demographic variables.
Table 2. Correlations amongst the variables in the hypothesized model.
Note. *p <.05 and **p <.001.
SDM
Healthy
Eating
Focus on
Quality of
Food
Process-
Focused
Weight Loss
Strategies
Flexible
Dieting
Approach
Food
Planning
NSDM
Dysfunction
al Eating
Behavior
Focus on
Quantity of
Food
Outcome-
Focused
Weight Loss
Strategies
Rigid
Dieting
Avoidance
Food
Planning
Food Planning Orientations
Approach
• Focuses on desirable objectives and involves moving toward the desirable objectives (e.g., trying to exercise daily) (Elliot, A.J, &
Sheldon, 1998)
• An approach orientation is associated with goal progress and adoption of health-promoting behaviors (Elliot et al., 1998)
• Associated with positive affect and less associated with depressive symptoms (Elliot et al., 1998)
Avoidance
• Focuses on undesired objectives and involves moving away from undesired objectives (e.g., avoid junk foods) (Elliot et al., 1998)
• Highly prevalent amongst mood disturbed adolescents (Otis & Pelletier, 2007)
• Associated with eating concerns, bulimia symptomology, and, to a lesser extent, healthy eating (Otis & Pelletier, 2008)
SDM for
Eating
NSDM for
Eating
Approach
Avoidance
Healthy
Eating
Unhealthy
Eating+
-
+
+
-
-
Contact Information
Kheana Barbeau kbarb006@uottawa.ca
Camille Guertin cguer052@uottawa.ca
Luc Pelletier social@uottawa.ca
References
Adriaanse, M. A., van Oosten, J. M. F., de Ridder, D. T. D., de Wit, J. B. F., & Evers, C. (2011). Planning what not to eat: Ironic effects of implementation intentions negating unhealthy habits. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 37, 69-81. Doi: 10.1177/0146167210390523
Adriaanse, M. A., Vinkers, C. D. W., de Ridder, D. T. D., Hox, J. J., & de Wit, J. B. F. (2011). Do implementation intentions help to eat a healthy diet? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Appetite,
56, 183-193. Doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2010.10.012
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2001). How is BMI calculated and interpreted? Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/index.html
Elliot, A. J., & Sheldon, K. M. (1998).Avoidance of personal goals and the personality–illness relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1282–1299.
Otis, N., & Pelletier, L. G. (2008). Women’s regulation styles for eating behaviors and outcomes: The mediating role of approach and avoidance food planning. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 55–67. Doi: 10.1007/s11031-008-
9083-3
Pelletier, L., & Dion, S. (2007). An examination of general and specific motivational mechanisms for the relations between body dissatisfaction and eating behaviours. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26(3), 303–
333. Doi: 10.1521/jscp.2007.26.3.303
Pelletier, L., Dion, S., Slovinec-D’Angelo, M., & Reid, R. (2004). Why do you regulate what you eat? Relationships between forms of regulation, eating behaviors, sustained dietary behavior change, and psychological
adjustment. Motivation and Emotion, 28(3), 245–277. Doi: 10.1023/B:MOEM.0000040154.40922.14
SDM for
Eating
NSDM for
Eating
Approach Healthy
Eating
Avoidance
Unhealthy
Eating
.49**
.32**
.07
.44**
Note. The regression coefficients are significant at ** p < .001 and not significant at n.s. p > 0.05. The fit of this model is as follows: (X2
(5) = 15.22, p =
.009, CFI = .98, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .03).