Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.



Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this


  1. 1. IMPROVING NUTRITION USING A PSYCHOSOCIAL INTERVENTION FOR BREAKFAST CONSUMPTION? Rajith Amaratunga, Barbara Mullan, and Emily Kothe School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, AustraliaIntroduction Both interventions led to significant increases in positive attitudes towards breakfast whenBreakfast is associated with a number of compared to the control group.physical and psychosocial health outcomes,including a decrease in risk of cardiovascular 0.9disease (Rampersaud, Pereira, Girard, 0.8Adams, & Metzl, 2005). However, only 61% 0.7of Australian young people regularly 0.6consume a morning meal (Australian Bureau 0.5of Statistics, 1997). 0.4 0.3 0.2Research into other health behaviours has 0.1suggested that interventions which frame 0 Figure 1. Sample of positive framing messageheath messages in terms of health benefits Positive Negative Control Group Framing Framingare more successful than factually equivalentinterventions which emphasise health risks Figure 5. Change in attitude towards breakfast consumption(Kahneman & Tversky, 1984). Framingeffects have not previously been investigatedin the context of breakfast consumption. Individuals in the control group experienced a decline PBC over the course of the intervention. This was not observed in either intervention group.Aim 0.2 Positive Negative Control Framing FramingThe present study investigated the use ofpositively and negatively framed breakfast -0.0messages in increasing breakfast Figure 2. Sample of negative framing messageconsumption, and social cognitions related to breakfast, over a four week follow-up. -0.2The aim of the study was to examine the Results -0.4effects of two brief, web-based, psychosocialinterventions. Factually equivalent messageswere designed for the two framing conditions As expected levels of TPB variables atbased on principles from the Theory of baseline were found to predict breakfast -0.6 Figure 6. Change in PBCPlanned Behaviour (Azjen, 1991) and utilising consumption at follow-up.Implementation Intentions (Gollwitzer &Brandstatter, 1997). The influence of the No significant changes in behaviour orintervention on attitude, subjective norm, Attitudes -0.024 subjective norm were observed for eitherperceived behaviour control, intention and R2 = .368** R2 = .520** experimental group. Subjective Norm .197 Intention .704** Behaviourbehaviour was investigated. .535** .187 PBC Conclusion Figure 3: Model 1 with standardized regression coefficients (β) (Note * p <.05; ** p<.001)Method Based on the present findings it is difficult to Contrary to expectations, no differences in how best to frame health messages whenParticipants (N=109) were randomly behaviour or any psychosocial variables were attempting to promote positive beliefs aboutassigned to one of three groups. found between the positive and negative breakfast. framing conditions at follow-up.Positive framing: Messages emphasising While the current interventions led to morethe health benefits of breakfast consumption positive beliefs about breakfast consumptionand the implementation intention task. Subjective Norm these changes were not effectively translated Negative to change in breakfast eating behaviour.Negative framing: Messages emphasising Frame Positive Further research should be conducted tothe health risks of breakfast skipping and the Frame determine how to best translate theseimplementation intention task. PBC changes in cognition to change in breakfast consumptionControl: Distracter task AttitudeIn all groups, breakfast related attitudes,social norms, and perceived behavioural Acknowledgementscontrol were measured at both occasions.Breakfast eating behaviour was assessed at Behaviour This study would not have been possible without the time and effort of those who participated in thisbaseline and four week follow-up. research. As always they have our deepest 0 2 4 6 8 gratitude. The authors would also like to thank Cara Figure 4. Between group comparison of follow-up scores: Wong and Adrian Macarthur-King for their support. TPB variables and behaviour