The aim of this study was to determine the effects of distraction and focused attention on both food intake and accuracy of perceived intake in women with non-clinical levels of disordered eating. In a laboratory study, twenty-seven young women consumed three identical pasta meals once a week for three consecutive weeks. Meals were eaten ad libitum during a control and two test conditions, in which attention was either diverted away from (distraction condition) or directed towards food-related stimuli (focused attention condition). They also completed the drive for thinness, bulimia and body dissatisfaction subscales of the Eating Disorders Inventory-2. Intake was significantly higher in the distraction than in the control or focused attention conditions, but was not related to eating psychopathology. A measure of accuracy of perceived intake indicated that drive for thinness was associated with overestimation of food intake in the focused attention condition. This study suggests that distraction could promote food intake in all non-clinical consumers, irrespective of individual differences in eating behaviours. Furthermore, it suggests that those with a high drive for thinness may overestimate intake when required to focus on their food. These findings could have implications for mealtime interventions in the treatment of eating disorders.
For those involved in the care of patients with eating disorders, reaching a healthy BMI via increasing caloric intake is a common treatment goal (Fairburn & Harrison, 2003). Whilst there is a paucity of evidence from within the eating disorders field, it is clear from the appetite literature that environmental influences are important in predicting amount of food consumed (e.g. Wansink, 2010 and Wansink and Sobal, 2007). The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of different environmental conditions (distraction and focusing attention on food) on food intake and perceived food intake in those with varying levels of non-clinical eating psychopathology.
Both food-related and non-food-related environmental factors can affect meal size. Food-related factors include portion size and variety of foods offered, and non-food related factors include the presence of others, audio and audio-visual distractors and other aspects of the immediate mealtime environment (Wansink, 2010 and Wansink and Sobal, 2007). Naturalistic studies have found that music (e.g. Stroebele & de Castro, 2006) and the presence of others (e.g. de Castro, 1990 and de Castro, 1997) are associated with increased intake. Distraction-related increases in food intake have also been seen within laboratory experiments, including when food is consumed alongside watching television (Bellisle et al., 2004, Blass et al., 2006 and Hetherington et al., 2006a) and playing video games (Cessna, Raudenbush, Reed, & Hunker, 2007). In contrast, focusing attention on the sensory properties of eaten foods can promote reduced intake relative to distracting conditions (e.g. Hetherington, Foster, Newman, Anderson, & Norton, 2006). This distraction-related overconsumption tends to occur in all individuals. However, several studies have also considered dieting and restrained eating within this context.
Restrained eating is a construct that refers to an individual's conscious attempt to limit food intake in order to control body weight (Herman & Mack, 1975). This close monitoring of intake can be abandoned under certain conditions, including distraction, producing enhanced intake relative to non-distracting conditions. There is evidence that restrained eaters consume more than non-restrained individuals under distraction (e.g. Ward & Mann, 2000). Similarly, Bellisle and Dalix (2001) found that cognitive restraint was associated with increased intake under distraction (listening to a recorded story) compared with a control condition. In this study, they also included a condition in which participants’ attention was focused on the sensory properties of the eaten foods. Although intake was lower than in the distraction condition (and similar to a control condition), this difference was not significant (in contrast with Hetherington, Foster, et al., 2006). A positive correlation between restraint score and the difference in intake between control and distraction conditions indicated that those with higher levels of restraint are particularly susceptible to the effects of distraction on food intake. However, not all studies of the impact of distraction on eating have found that it is associated with enhanced intake (e.g. Bellisle, Dalix, Airinei, Hercberg, & Péneau, 2009).
A number of processes relating to the allocation of attentional resources have been proposed to explain the effects of distraction and focused attention on food intake. When encouraged to focus on the sensory properties of foods this seems to promote reduced intake relative to distracting conditions (e.g. Hetherington et al., 2006a and Hetherington et al., 2006b). However, when attention is narrowed towards non-food-related cues, disinhibition of intake is promoted. If these distractions are cognitively demanding this attentional challenge can impair the ability of restrained eaters to inhibit food intake via the allocation of cognitive resources to the distracting stimuli (e.g. Wallis and Hetherington, 2004 and Ward and Mann, 2000), thus leaving them vulnerable to disinhibition. It has also been suggested (e.g. Higgs & Woodward, 2009) that this allocation of attentional resources may disrupt satiety cues or divert attention away from the physiological signals associated with ingestion of foods. Specifically, Higgs and Woodward (2009) proposed that when distracted during eating, the memory of the meal may not be encoded as it would have been without the distraction, leading individuals to consume more in subsequent eating episodes after being distracted during a previous meal.
